As you know I am very interested in the Quebec.
November 2005 I wrote a text in french (it's my mother tongue). In this text, I say my reasons why I am for the sovereignty of the Quebec.
Some months later, on a french-speaking forum, someone did ask "Why independance ?". This person wrote in english.
One of my answers is my text, translated in english (the following text).
I am sure that I wrote it bad. That's why I ask whether someone can correct it.
________________________________________
1. I defend the diversity of the cultures, because this diversity is as necessary as every other diversity, especially the biodiversity. Each country must have the possibility to keep its culture, its specificity. The real diversity must not be only in a country but ever in the whole group of all countries. Effectively, if each country did accept the others cultures in se (itself), first its culture would be threatened, second the countries would lose their own respective distinctions. Multiculturalism is consecutively not a solution, like we can think at first sight. [For similar reasons I am for the sovereignty of Catalunya. Let us notify that Zapatero named Catalunya a "nación".]
The Quebec is now officially one of the ten provinces of the Canada, the only province whose the only official language french is. The New-Brunswick has french and english as official languages. The eight others provinces have english as only official language.
The fact is that the Quebec is taken between the Canada and the United States, which are both english-speaking (let us not forget the spain-speaking Mexic). The Quebec is about like the "Gallic village which still and forever resist face to the invaders".
________________________________________
French language (le québecois) is also threatened by english language with the following factors :
- english is the international language which everybody use as transition language. Unhappily, many people forget that it is only a transition language. And a transition language is not a real contact with the local culture. The final (local ; of the country whose we are immigrant or tourist) must be learned, with or without any transition language (english for example). Let us observe that english is the final language in the english-speaking countries.
- The more exchanges there are from countries to others, the more there is an appearing and developped homogenisation, in spite of diversity (here is a danger of free trade) of exchanged "products". These products can be books, games, films, music, etc., but people, too. Because many people don't learn the final (local) language - all good for english - the more they (these people) circulate, the more english will be omnipresent (let us not talk about internet).
________________________________________
So... french language is directly threatened in north America, in or out of the Quebec (And can we forget the unacceptable deportation of the Acadians). Moreover the actual prime minister, liberal, of the Canada, encourages more the english-speaking relations (even if the Quebec can refuse some immigrants). [From about one year the prime minister of the Canada is Stephen Harper, as you know, a conservative.]
Once the Quebec will have become a country the quebecer culture will have the possibilty to developp freely its dynamism, on one hand because the Quebec will take better (and free) control of immigration and integration of immigrating people, one the other hand because it will be free/out of the Canadian law (become a real country). You will have understood that the Quebec will have french as only official language. It's absolutely necessary if we want french language to survive (and eventually against globalisation of english language). French will keep priority face to the others languages (even if english course stay ; John James Charest, now prime minister of the Quebec, liberal and not sovereignist pantoute, decided for english already from the first primary year in the Quebec, which did happily not find success in Switzerland).
________________________________________
2. The party that I always more approach is the green (ecologist) party.Nature is one of my priority and must become a priority, a criterium for each one. The Quebec is more conscious and active about nature (and social) but cannot act with all hands because it is not the priority of the canadian government. Becoming a country the Quebec will find this possibility (even if a not-so-little part of Quebecer are against sovereignty, the federalists). The Quebec will have the possibiliy to develop its public transports network (not as developped as the swiss one).
________________________________________
3. The Quebecers are always more determinated to the sovereignty. The referenda (1980 and 1995) are one of confirmations.
The referendum of 20th may 1980, motived by René Lévesque ("Je me souviens." !), with a victory of the NO at 59.56 % and with a participation at 85.6 %. In the context we can find a fear of federalists Quebecers and the government : Pierre-Elliott Trudeau promises a dead end if the YES wins and did invest stronly for an anti-sovereignty message (saying the good points of federalism and "preventing" about dangers of the sovereignty).
The referendum of 30th october 1995, motived by Jacques Parizeau (just after having known the resultat of the first referendum Jacques Parizeau had said "Si je vous ai bien compris, vous êtes en train de dire à la prochaine fois."), with a second victory of the NO, but so small : the NO wins at 50.6 % with a record participation at 93.52 %. Once more, and even more, the referendum has been stolen. A great panic comes into the federalists when the surveys of 18th october announce the YES in advance... But the verdict is : NO... 49.4 for sovereignty. The federalist joy is as deep as the sovereignist deception. Jacques Parizeau, « C’est vrai qu’on a été battu, mais au fond, par quoi? Par l’argent et les votes ethniques ! » Without these ethnical votes, YES would have won. In all cases, YES did increase !
________________________________________
4. Emergency of the sovereignty is real in reason of the points that I mentionned. Low demography and english-speaking media in the Quebec are not helping. Plus le temps passe, plus l'anglais s'installe. Liberal do all for winning time (Scandale des comandites for example).
There are some others arguments, but I don't know them enough for explaining them by convinced way.
________________________________________
[Correct me if I am in the field at anywhere.]
[NB : When I wrote this text for the first time - in french - I wanted to explain it to a friend in Switzerland. Yes... my english can be better.
]Some things have changed... january 2006 Stephen Harper (conservative) became the prime minister of the Canada (instead of Paul Martin, liberal)... Bernard Landry was chief of PQ (Parti Québecois). Now it's André Boisclair.
Thanks for correcting my uncorrect text.
NB : I don't ask, whether you agree or not. This would be a political discussion... and not allowed on this forum.
Shokin
