|
On February 23 2013 14:45 lepape wrote:
Because it's a part of who you are. Not because it's better.
(By the way, could you please explain how the bill 101 dampens the freedom of speech in any way?)
It's not apart of who you are, it's how you got here. There's a big difference. Everything you do is about how you were raised as an individual because of how your parents were raised as individuals. While this may correlate with culture it is not the cause of culture. Your fathers individual choice to follow cultural traditions is what impacted his raising of you.
I think it's pretty self-explanatory in the name. It's the right to communicate in whichever way you so desire..whether that's orally, on signage, or fricken hand signals lol. If society has no use for it, he will lose business, if it gains from it then it should be accepted
|
On February 23 2013 14:51 Dawski wrote:
I think it's pretty self-explanatory in the name. It's the right to communicate in whichever way you so desire..whether that's orally, on signage, or fricken hand signals lol. If society has no use for it, he will lose business, if it gains from it then it should be accepted
And how exactly does the bill 101 refrains anyone from communicating any message he desires, in any language?
By the way, there is no such thing as total freedom of speech in any country I know of. Try opening a shop on any main street, putting a sign with offensive words and wait for how long it takes for the sign to be put away. Laws are about where you draw the line.
Saying a law is bad solely because it affects freedom of speech, that's a pretty shallow argument right there. There's already plenty of laws and regulations affecting freedom of speech everywhere.
|
On February 23 2013 15:00 lepape wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 14:51 Dawski wrote:
I think it's pretty self-explanatory in the name. It's the right to communicate in whichever way you so desire..whether that's orally, on signage, or fricken hand signals lol. If society has no use for it, he will lose business, if it gains from it then it should be accepted And how exactly does the bill 101 refrains anyone from communicating any message he desires, in any language? By the way, there is no such thing as total freedom of speech in any country I know of. Try opening a shop on any main street, putting a sign with offensive words and wait for how long it takes for the sign to be put away. Laws are about where you draw the line.
The bill forces people to put both french and english on any piece of signage, and even make french the same size or larger... unfortunately for the PQ that also means that if someone doesn't want to support french culture for whatever reason and he doesn't want to put french on his sign he's allowed to because of basic freedom of speech. You could argue that it's not good for society and thus isn't a true freedom, but I don't think french culture/language is automatically seen as better for society like someones right to clean air would be (sry wrote this after 2nd paragraph lol) and the topic really is debatable
You're right because the freedom of someone walking down the street to not see offensive language outweighs the freedom for posting it because it would be more harmful for society. (again think the right for smokers to smoke anywhere they want vs non-smokers right to clean air in certain places).
|
I agree, that's part of the real debate concerning bill 101. Laws are about reinforcing positive actions and discouraging negative/harmful actions, after all.
So the real question that's been debated for decades : is a sign written solely in english really harmful to the french canadian culture?
Asked this way, I admit it sounds silly and this is why it's also hard to convince the answer could be yes. And then again, this issue has always been about the bigger portrait in the medium-long term, which is always hard to explain.
In the very long term, it probably doesnt even matter. But then again, nothing that we do today matters in the very long term, I guess.
|
On February 23 2013 15:27 lepape wrote:
I agree, that's part of the real debate concerning bill 101. Laws are about reinforcing positive actions and discouraging negative/harmful actions, after all.
So the real question that's been debated for decades : is a sign written solely in english really harmful to the french canadian culture?
Asked this way, I admit it sounds silly and this is why it's also hard to convince the answer could be yes. And then again, this issue has always been about the bigger portrait in the medium-long term, which is always hard to explain.
In the very long term, it probably doesnt even matter. But then again, nothing that we do today matters in the very long term, I guess.
Yeah totally which is where we started to branch off in the debate that - is preserving of the french culture through laws which overrides the freedom of speech reinforcing positive action.
And that's a big point which I've brought up multiple times in this thread as well. If in the long term it is ruled that it isnt worth it and the culture does in fact become more a mix of anglophone culture (I don't think the heart and motivation of the people from that culture would ever die) In the very long term it really isn't the biggest of deals and humanity will carry on and there will always still be something to be affectionate about.
|
Don't forget that you can put a sign in any language you want, as long as there is a french one. It's really not that big of a deal. Just put a "café" beside "coffee". There. Done. I don't understand what the fuss is about. If you're an immigrant coming here opening a shop, I think it's the least you can do to try and integrate our society.
Also I just want to bring up a point about the different types of culture. I had an argument once with someone from Louisiana talking about the Cajun culture, and how it still existed even though they were surrounded by Americans. But when I ask if he still spoke french, he said no, and basically what was left was a bit of music and food from the past. So my point here is the difference between a living culture and a "museum" culture. Unfortunately, many cultures in north america (particulary the native's, which is very sad) have become museum cultures. When you only have memories from the past but you cease to create cultural products, even more, when your language stops evolving or is forgotten, your culture is not living anymore. When a culture dies like this, the world as a whole becomes poorer. You might not notice it, but a culture is also a different viewpoint (in part because the language and the way it is spoken create a different viewpoint). Anyway it already made this argument before, kinda.
Now about sovereignty, I am a bit on the fence about it. Emotionally I would like Quebec to be independant. But at the same time, like I said, perhaps being forced to cooperate with the rest of Canada, even when it seems pointless, maybe makes us stronger in the end and the constant argument makes us think more and we are wiser from it. So I don't know...
Yes some freedoms are limited through this law, and sometimes I also wonder myself if it's all worth it. But this law forces you to do, is it really that bad? Stop looking at it in a Kantian way.
Plus the problem with capitalism is that many useful things for humanity don't have a price tag on it.
|
On February 24 2013 03:06 Xain wrote:
Don't forget that you can put a sign in any language you want, as long as there is a french one. It's really not that big of a deal. Just put a "café" beside "coffee". There. Done. I don't understand what the fuss is about. If you're an immigrant coming here opening a shop, I think it's the least you can do to try and integrate our society.
Also I just want to bring up a point about the different types of culture. I had an argument once with someone from Louisiana talking about the Cajun culture, and how it still existed even though they were surrounded by Americans. But when I ask if he still spoke french, he said no, and basically what was left was a bit of music and food from the past. So my point here is the difference between a living culture and a "museum" culture. Unfortunately, many cultures in north america (particulary the native's, which is very sad) have become museum cultures. When you only have memories from the past but you cease to create cultural products, even more, when your language stops evolving or is forgotten, your culture is not living anymore. When a culture dies like this, the world as a whole becomes poorer. You might not notice it, but a culture is also a different viewpoint (in part because the language and the way it is spoken create a different viewpoint). Anyway it already made this argument before, kinda.
Now about sovereignty, I am a bit on the fence about it. Emotionally I would like Quebec to be independant. But at the same time, like I said, perhaps being forced to cooperate with the rest of Canada, even when it seems pointless, maybe makes us stronger in the end and the constant argument makes us think more and we are wiser from it. So I don't know...
Yes some freedoms are limited through this law, and sometimes I also wonder myself if it's all worth it. But this law forces you to do, is it really that bad? Stop looking at it in a Kantian way.
Plus the problem with capitalism is that many useful things for humanity don't have a price tag on it.
I guess the problem occurs when you have something that can't be translated. Like a joke in english.
|
On February 24 2013 03:06 Xain wrote:
Don't forget that you can put a sign in any language you want, as long as there is a french one. It's really not that big of a deal. Just put a "café" beside "coffee". There. Done. I don't understand what the fuss is about. If you're an immigrant coming here opening a shop, I think it's the least you can do to try and integrate our society.
Also I just want to bring up a point about the different types of culture. I had an argument once with someone from Louisiana talking about the Cajun culture, and how it still existed even though they were surrounded by Americans. But when I ask if he still spoke french, he said no, and basically what was left was a bit of music and food from the past. So my point here is the difference between a living culture and a "museum" culture. Unfortunately, many cultures in north america (particulary the native's, which is very sad) have become museum cultures. When you only have memories from the past but you cease to create cultural products, even more, when your language stops evolving or is forgotten, your culture is not living anymore. When a culture dies like this, the world as a whole becomes poorer. You might not notice it, but a culture is also a different viewpoint (in part because the language and the way it is spoken create a different viewpoint). Anyway it already made this argument before, kinda.
Now about sovereignty, I am a bit on the fence about it. Emotionally I would like Quebec to be independant. But at the same time, like I said, perhaps being forced to cooperate with the rest of Canada, even when it seems pointless, maybe makes us stronger in the end and the constant argument makes us think more and we are wiser from it. So I don't know...
Yes some freedoms are limited through this law, and sometimes I also wonder myself if it's all worth it. But this law forces you to do, is it really that bad? Stop looking at it in a Kantian way.
Plus the problem with capitalism is that many useful things for humanity don't have a price tag on it.
I just don't understand how the world became poorer when the Cajun culture was lost... If the viewpoint in todays world has merrit then it will be felt by a people. It's as simple as that. We're at an age now where cultures arn't the ones bringing new ideas into the world. We have the internet and funded studies to specifically examine different topics on all viewpoints and angles. edit: think of all the cultures that made up the french culture in Europe. You'd be silly to think that the french culture is completely genuine from the time it began. All those subcultures that were assimilated together to create the cultures we see today haven't been a loss for the world, instead it helped contribute to a bigger culture.
Language in and of itself is nothing more than a tool of communication. The language itself doesn't make your view of a subject any more or less credible. The emotional tie to the language isn't a result of the language, it's a result of a heavy desire from the people to be affectionate (I'll try say affectionate instead of pride as pointed out in past posts) about something.
You can't be surprised that a lot of people have a problem with a fascistic way of policing a tool of communication. The emotional tie that the people have grown towards their tool of communication in no way makes it any less or more than what it is.
|
On February 24 2013 04:05 Dawski wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 03:06 Xain wrote:
Don't forget that you can put a sign in any language you want, as long as there is a french one. It's really not that big of a deal. Just put a "café" beside "coffee". There. Done. I don't understand what the fuss is about. If you're an immigrant coming here opening a shop, I think it's the least you can do to try and integrate our society.
Also I just want to bring up a point about the different types of culture. I had an argument once with someone from Louisiana talking about the Cajun culture, and how it still existed even though they were surrounded by Americans. But when I ask if he still spoke french, he said no, and basically what was left was a bit of music and food from the past. So my point here is the difference between a living culture and a "museum" culture. Unfortunately, many cultures in north america (particulary the native's, which is very sad) have become museum cultures. When you only have memories from the past but you cease to create cultural products, even more, when your language stops evolving or is forgotten, your culture is not living anymore. When a culture dies like this, the world as a whole becomes poorer. You might not notice it, but a culture is also a different viewpoint (in part because the language and the way it is spoken create a different viewpoint). Anyway it already made this argument before, kinda.
Now about sovereignty, I am a bit on the fence about it. Emotionally I would like Quebec to be independant. But at the same time, like I said, perhaps being forced to cooperate with the rest of Canada, even when it seems pointless, maybe makes us stronger in the end and the constant argument makes us think more and we are wiser from it. So I don't know...
Yes some freedoms are limited through this law, and sometimes I also wonder myself if it's all worth it. But this law forces you to do, is it really that bad? Stop looking at it in a Kantian way.
Plus the problem with capitalism is that many useful things for humanity don't have a price tag on it. I just don't understand how the world became poorer when the Cajun culture was lost... If the viewpoint in todays world has merrit then it will be felt by a people. It's as simple as that. We're at an age now where cultures arn't the ones bringing new ideas into the world. We have the internet and funded studies to specifically examine different topics on all viewpoints and angles. edit: think of all the cultures that made up the french culture in Europe. You'd be silly to think that the french culture is completely genuine from the time it began. All those subcultures that were assimilated together to create the cultures we see today haven't been a loss for the world, instead it helped contribute to a bigger culture. Language in and of itself is nothing more than a tool of communication. The language itself doesn't make your view of a subject any more or less credible. The emotional tie to the language isn't a result of the language, it's a result of a heavy desire from the people to be affectionate (I'll try say affectionate instead of pride as pointed out in past posts) about something. You can't be surprised that a lot of people have a problem with a fascistic way of policing a tool of communication. The emotional tie that the people have grown towards their tool of communication in no way makes it any less or more than what it is.
I do agree that the french culture (or any surviving culture today) is a mix of different ones. However, if we bring up the exemple of France, they actually willingly destroyed many subcultures that existed through legislation, wars, etc. I think they would be better off today without having done that, but anyway this example is a bit different from the Quebec one so it's not relevant that I delve too much into it.
Language is more than a tool of communication. That's where you're wrong. Language is a way to think, to organize thoughts. It's more deep than just communication of ideas.
Edit: quick example: just the fact that you modify nouns by adding a letter for the feminine form (and that standard form is masculine) shapes your thoughts in a subtle but real way.
Yes I would agree with your last point if the law 101 was fascistic, but it's not.
|
On February 24 2013 04:15 Xain wrote:
I do agree that the french culture (or any surviving culture today) is a mix of different ones. However, if we bring up the exemple of France, they actually willingly destroyed many subcultures that existed through legislation, wars, etc. I think they would be better off today without having done that, but anyway this example is a bit different from the Quebec one so it's not relevant that I delve too much into it.
I wouldn't quite say that. In fact, the power of Germany, France, the UK, Spain and Italy comes from the unification and normalization of these territories.
It's not the most humanist approach, but the most efficient in the long run. Though life isn't about efficiency...
|
Language is more than a tool of communication. That's where you're wrong. Language is a way to think, to organize thoughts. It's more deep than just communication of ideas.
Edit: quick example: just the fact that you modify nouns by adding a letter for the feminine form (and that standard form is masculine) shapes your thoughts in a subtle but real way.
Yes I would agree with your last point if the law 101 was fascistic, but it's not.
But why don't we see this in actual application in real life? All the french canadians I know who learned english as a second language all think the exact same way anyone else does. The human mind is a constant design. People think differently based on chemical balances/all that other sciency stuff that i'm not going to list. These factors towards the way people think vary from people in the culture not from one culture to another.
Someone should be allowed to not support french culture by not including french on their signs. The idea of supporting french culture is an opinion. When you have a task force devoted entirely to enforcing an opinion that is in my opinion a facsistic way of policing.
I should flesh this post out a bit more. You can change the way a mind thinks but that's through constant repitition of an idea. If someone hears the same thing their whole life they will inevitably start to believe it. I don't want to look this negatively at the Quebec media but when they react to Manitoba going more bilingual by looking at the negative side and using it to show how "the people there don't want it! they hate us!" you can't help but feel that's more the effect
|
+ Show Spoiler +On February 24 2013 04:33 Dawski wrote:Show nested quote +
Language is more than a tool of communication. That's where you're wrong. Language is a way to think, to organize thoughts. It's more deep than just communication of ideas.
Edit: quick example: just the fact that you modify nouns by adding a letter for the feminine form (and that standard form is masculine) shapes your thoughts in a subtle but real way.
Yes I would agree with your last point if the law 101 was fascistic, but it's not.
But why don't we see this in actual application in real life? All the french canadians I know who learned english as a second language all think the exact same way anyone else does. The human mind is a constant design. People think differently based on chemical balances/all that other sciency stuff that i'm not going to list. These factors towards the way people think vary from people in the culture not from one culture to another. Someone should be allowed to not support french culture by not including french on their signs. The idea of supporting french culture is an opinion. When you have a task force devoted entirely to enforcing an opinion that is in my opinion a facsistic way of policing. I should flesh this post out a bit more. You can change the way a mind thinks but that's through constant repitition of an idea. If someone hears the same thing their whole life they will inevitably start to believe it. I don't want to look this negatively at the Quebec media but when they react to Manitoba going more bilingual by looking at the negative side and using it to show how "the people there don't want it! they hate us!" you can't help but feel that's more the effect
Never heard of this Manitoba thingy, but I don't watch tv so maybe I just missed it.
So having to pay taxes is fascistic? Having to wait for the green light to cross the street is fascistic?
And because you don't notice the difference doesn't mean it's not there. I notice it personally.
|
On February 24 2013 04:47 Xain wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 24 2013 04:33 Dawski wrote:Show nested quote +
Language is more than a tool of communication. That's where you're wrong. Language is a way to think, to organize thoughts. It's more deep than just communication of ideas.
Edit: quick example: just the fact that you modify nouns by adding a letter for the feminine form (and that standard form is masculine) shapes your thoughts in a subtle but real way.
Yes I would agree with your last point if the law 101 was fascistic, but it's not.
But why don't we see this in actual application in real life? All the french canadians I know who learned english as a second language all think the exact same way anyone else does. The human mind is a constant design. People think differently based on chemical balances/all that other sciency stuff that i'm not going to list. These factors towards the way people think vary from people in the culture not from one culture to another. Someone should be allowed to not support french culture by not including french on their signs. The idea of supporting french culture is an opinion. When you have a task force devoted entirely to enforcing an opinion that is in my opinion a facsistic way of policing. I should flesh this post out a bit more. You can change the way a mind thinks but that's through constant repitition of an idea. If someone hears the same thing their whole life they will inevitably start to believe it. I don't want to look this negatively at the Quebec media but when they react to Manitoba going more bilingual by looking at the negative side and using it to show how "the people there don't want it! they hate us!" you can't help but feel that's more the effect Never heard of this Manitoba thingy, but I don't watch tv so maybe I just missed it. So having to pay taxes is fascistic? Having to wait for the green light to cross the street is fascistic? And because you don't notice the difference doesn't mean it's not there. I notice it personally.
we've been over this already many times... even at the top of last page...
the idea of preserving the french culture is plainly NOT as objectively superior to society than not getting hit by a car or contributing to your government which represents you....
There was never enough evidence to promote the fact that preserving the french culture via this law would reinforce positive behaviour by the people
You can say you notice the difference but neurobiology disagrees
|
On February 24 2013 04:50 Dawski wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 04:47 Xain wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 24 2013 04:33 Dawski wrote:Show nested quote +
Language is more than a tool of communication. That's where you're wrong. Language is a way to think, to organize thoughts. It's more deep than just communication of ideas.
Edit: quick example: just the fact that you modify nouns by adding a letter for the feminine form (and that standard form is masculine) shapes your thoughts in a subtle but real way.
Yes I would agree with your last point if the law 101 was fascistic, but it's not.
But why don't we see this in actual application in real life? All the french canadians I know who learned english as a second language all think the exact same way anyone else does. The human mind is a constant design. People think differently based on chemical balances/all that other sciency stuff that i'm not going to list. These factors towards the way people think vary from people in the culture not from one culture to another. Someone should be allowed to not support french culture by not including french on their signs. The idea of supporting french culture is an opinion. When you have a task force devoted entirely to enforcing an opinion that is in my opinion a facsistic way of policing. I should flesh this post out a bit more. You can change the way a mind thinks but that's through constant repitition of an idea. If someone hears the same thing their whole life they will inevitably start to believe it. I don't want to look this negatively at the Quebec media but when they react to Manitoba going more bilingual by looking at the negative side and using it to show how "the people there don't want it! they hate us!" you can't help but feel that's more the effect Never heard of this Manitoba thingy, but I don't watch tv so maybe I just missed it. So having to pay taxes is fascistic? Having to wait for the green light to cross the street is fascistic? And because you don't notice the difference doesn't mean it's not there. I notice it personally. we've been over this already many times... even at the top of last page... the idea of preserving the french culture is plainly NOT as objectively superior to society than not getting hit by a car or contributing to your government which represents you.... There was never enough evidence to promote the fact that preserving the french culture via this law would reinforce positive behaviour by the people You can say you notice the difference but neurobiology disagrees
*Sigh* And you are a neurobiologist?
Not it's not superior than not getting hit by a car, but respect and acknowledgement of french culture in Quebec is superior to you not wanting to put a goddamn sign in french beside your store's name for god's sake it's not a big thing.
|
On February 24 2013 05:04 Xain wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 04:50 Dawski wrote:On February 24 2013 04:47 Xain wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 24 2013 04:33 Dawski wrote:Show nested quote +
Language is more than a tool of communication. That's where you're wrong. Language is a way to think, to organize thoughts. It's more deep than just communication of ideas.
Edit: quick example: just the fact that you modify nouns by adding a letter for the feminine form (and that standard form is masculine) shapes your thoughts in a subtle but real way.
Yes I would agree with your last point if the law 101 was fascistic, but it's not.
But why don't we see this in actual application in real life? All the french canadians I know who learned english as a second language all think the exact same way anyone else does. The human mind is a constant design. People think differently based on chemical balances/all that other sciency stuff that i'm not going to list. These factors towards the way people think vary from people in the culture not from one culture to another. Someone should be allowed to not support french culture by not including french on their signs. The idea of supporting french culture is an opinion. When you have a task force devoted entirely to enforcing an opinion that is in my opinion a facsistic way of policing. I should flesh this post out a bit more. You can change the way a mind thinks but that's through constant repitition of an idea. If someone hears the same thing their whole life they will inevitably start to believe it. I don't want to look this negatively at the Quebec media but when they react to Manitoba going more bilingual by looking at the negative side and using it to show how "the people there don't want it! they hate us!" you can't help but feel that's more the effect Never heard of this Manitoba thingy, but I don't watch tv so maybe I just missed it. So having to pay taxes is fascistic? Having to wait for the green light to cross the street is fascistic? And because you don't notice the difference doesn't mean it's not there. I notice it personally. we've been over this already many times... even at the top of last page... the idea of preserving the french culture is plainly NOT as objectively superior to society than not getting hit by a car or contributing to your government which represents you.... There was never enough evidence to promote the fact that preserving the french culture via this law would reinforce positive behaviour by the people You can say you notice the difference but neurobiology disagrees *Sigh* And you are a neurobiologist? Not it's not superior than not getting hit by a car, but respect and acknowledgement of french culture in Quebec is superior to you not wanting to put a goddamn sign in french beside your store's name for god's sake it's not a big thing.
I don't have to be a neurobiologist to read that it's our life experiences that shape us. It's what were told growing up that shapes us. For example, you won't think differently about women because of the words your language describes as feminine unless your own life experiences and what people tell you paint the picture.
respect and acknowledgment of the french culture is not worth having a task force legally able to come into my private business go into my office and tear down a quote from benjamin franklin because it's a threat to the integrity of the french language
Big government powers like this may not always be used wrongly, but they have the ability to. Think of the recent pasta story as well. When the OQLF apologized for the overzealousness of the employee who filed the complaint they phrased it what could be translated as "his heart was in the right place". This has a huge effect on the people! they believe this stuff! His heart was most definitely not in the right place! That's how peoples minds begin to work differently in cultures
|
|
|
I think what caught my eye the most about that article wasn't just the power abuse of the OQLF but instead the response from the restaurant..
"Joe Beef is a French restaurant that serves French market cuisine and sells uniquely French wine; the name Joe Beef stems from the namesake tavern of 1820. Our menu is only in French (there is no English menu on premises), all the staff is fully bilingual, we spend all of our money in province using local suppliers and analyze all our systems to make sure that the money we spend stays in province, we have endured the insult of the Mev box, the retroactive alcohol tax, and several incidents with the OQLF. Look at our website; we have brought and participated in several foreign magazine editorials all promoting various aspects of tourism and eating traveling in Quebec. Our book was a success in French, 20K copies, and internationally it sold 40K, and is essentially a book about our love affair with this province. JOE BEEF is the true son of the people, JOE BEEF is a true patriot . The inspectors that we met were not able or intelligent and obviously not understanding of their task, one actually mistook the hatch print as a menu and asked what the price was on the sausages it promotes, we were stunned, a child can obviously see that it's art, not a menu. We sent them a long letter on advice of a lawyer explaining all of the said items in question and how they were all antiques and artifacts and we have not really heard anything intelligent back."
It's no wonder the PQ and the OQLF can be at least semi-supported in Quebec. They are actually trying to reason with the OQLF that "don't do it! we're totally for Quebec! you got the wrong guys!" instead of actually fighting against the unjust law. We would just hate to invest some of our money into a next door neighbour of the same nation who spends billions of dollars on bilingualism and french immersion programs... For Mother Russi-... Quebec! Pure nationalism.
That article got it spot on in a couple places
"Brit & Chips, very clearly a British-themed restaurant, was cited for daring to use the term "fish and chips" on their menu, and for having a sign on the bathroom door that read "gents." The OQLF isn't as quick to back down from this case, perhaps because it's easier to pick on symbols of our colonial oppressors."
"The Parti Québécois can blame lone, "over-zealous" language inspectors all they want, but the law is the problem. When you give law enforcement enough rope, they're bound to hang someone with it. And in this case, they're targeting another jewel in Montreal's food scene; a restaurant frequented by international celebrities and a place that's become a source of pride for all Montrealers. Dave, Fred Morin and the gang at Joe Beef are some of Quebec's best ambassadors abroad, and we're giving them and restaurateurs like them every reason in the world to take their money and passion and head down the 401."
Sorry if i'm a little more emotionally invested in this post than the last ones. Just bothers me in ways not many things do.
|
On February 24 2013 06:29 Dawski wrote:
They are actually trying to reason with the OQLF that "don't do it! we're totally for Quebec! you got the wrong guys!" instead of actually fighting against the unjust law.
The problem is, you can't fight bill 101 without being anti-french. 101 gave control of the province back to the french, and they never found a way to retain control without it.
|
Not only related to the PQ, but montreal and quebec politics in general:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/education/quebec-to-raise-university-tuition-fees-despite-strong-opposition/article9018652/
Our higher education summit ends exactly the way it began: Tuition price + 3%. This is exactly what Marois was saying she would do for the past couple weeks, and absolutely nothing changed during the summit.
I'm afraid (in the polite sense) that she just shafted the last group that would've supported her. It must be tough being in power in a time of recession, but Obama did just fine. It's sad that the entire 'maple spring' ends on a draconian note: "Let the adults take care of business, students, we actually really don't care what you've got to say."
Not that I ever supported the red square, but to see leaders shove away young adults like this is disgusting.
|
On February 26 2013 13:34 Abraxas514 wrote:Not only related to the PQ, but montreal and quebec politics in general: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/education/quebec-to-raise-university-tuition-fees-despite-strong-opposition/article9018652/Our higher education summit ends exactly the way it began: Tuition price + 3%. This is exactly what Marois was saying she would do for the past couple weeks, and absolutely nothing changed during the summit. I'm afraid (in the polite sense) that she just shafted the last group that would've supported her. It must be tough being in power in a time of recession, but Obama did just fine. It's sad that the entire 'maple spring' ends on a draconian note: "Let the adults take care of business, students, we actually really don't care what you've got to say." Not that I ever supported the red square, but to see leaders shove away young adults like this is disgusting.
I've usually agreed with you in this thread but seriously? People are complaining about a 3% increase of tuition? What is that like $40-$80 a year? I'm quite sure that might even be less than the inflation rate of education nowadays which would make it a rollback lol.
It's not shocking that people will actually have to make a business strategy and ignore the entitled students who think that money comes from trees in order to get the education system back on the road to sustainable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
