tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19490962.post116999448266835442..comments2023-12-10T10:06:41.979+00:00Comments on mutations of mortality: The religious rights of communitiesTerry Hamblinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06346629921055055879noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19490962.post-1170120027728499132007-01-30T01:20:00.000+00:002007-01-30T01:20:00.000+00:00Fukuyama fails to look at the history of Canada an...Fukuyama fails to look at the history of Canada and Quebec to understand the true distinct society. It has always been a "different" society since being beaten by the British on the Plains of Abraham. It is different in language, religion, law, culture and social fabric.<BR/><BR/>Under the storm of culture bombarding Quebec from south of the border and English Canada, Bill 101 simply strengthened the Quebec culture inside Quebec. It means little to anyone outside the province. While the recent proclamation of Quebec as 'nation' it must be taken in context.<BR/><BR/>Harper said: "The real question is simple: do Quebecois make up a nation of their own in a united Canada? The answer is yes.<BR/><BR/>"Do Quebecois make up a nation independent from Canada? The answer is no and will always be no."<BR/><BR/>Clearly there is no partition here. It is still basically a federalist position. However it scales very well in Quebec too and placates the separatists to large degree.<BR/><BR/>In fact, it means nothing. It is not Canadian law.<BR/><BR/>Fukuyama further does not consider as John Porter said in, The Vertical Mosaic: An Analysis of Social Class and Power in Canada. University of Toronto Press, 1965, that Canada is 'vertical mosaic' rather than a melting pot. So Canada's entire make-up are distinct societies. Quebec is just bigger.<BR/><BR/>As an anglophone Ontarian, I applaud our diversity, and what it takes with one hand it gives back 10 fold with the other.<BR/><BR/>Chris Dwyer<BR/>CLL CANADA<BR/>http://www.cllcanada.caAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19490962.post-1170115278828958202007-01-30T00:01:00.000+00:002007-01-30T00:01:00.000+00:00i think you have made a very interesting discussio...i think you have made a very interesting discussion,and cleverly,clearly tried to express the logic of class inclusion/exclusion categories in the mesh of modern<BR/>societies. i wonder how hobbes & locke would have managed. surely,there must be a conflict of individual<BR/>and group demands within the earlier societies<BR/>despite your keen distinction of how identity<BR/>has traditionally been conferred.<BR/><BR/>i found your treatment of this subject very usefully<BR/>opens many issues for inspection.<BR/>if the apparatus of the state were wonderfully benign we might hope these problems could be resolved from "above".....but things were very tough<BR/>when locke was around.<BR/><BR/>terry....maybe you are the next best thing!<BR/><BR/>you certainly have a fine mind for demonstrating a tangle of problems.<BR/><BR/>best wishes, joeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19490962.post-1170061238367695392007-01-29T09:00:00.000+00:002007-01-29T09:00:00.000+00:00Thank you Dennis,Obviously, you will know more tha...Thank you Dennis,<BR/><BR/>Obviously, you will know more than Fukuyama or I about the situation in Quebec. I guess that it is the people in the rest of Canada who might have a contrary view, though.<BR/><BR/>I don't think Fukuyama was particularly dealing with immigrants. Women and homosexuals are not immigrants either, nor strangely enough, are the Muslims who have been causing the trouble. The 7/7 bombers and 21/7 alleged attempted bombers and those involved in the alleged airplane plot last year were all indigeonous British Muslims from second and third generation families. I think that the point he is making is that although individual Muslims, women, homosexuals, African-Americans, Spanish-speaking Americans and French Canadians have human rights, to give them special rights as a group within a group may cause offence to those not within that group. This is most apparent when we hear of demands from Muslims women to go about masked, or that Shariah law should be used in family matters, but there is a potential for any such distinction to offend. Obviously we would not deny women separate bathrooms and many group demands are neutral, but there is the potential for conflicts of interest. The current point of conflict in the UK is the law that would force Catholic adoption agencies to place children with gay parents.Terry Hamblinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06346629921055055879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19490962.post-1170040789534024542007-01-29T03:19:00.000+00:002007-01-29T03:19:00.000+00:00Dear Dr. Terry, I am a "CLLer" from Quebec City an...Dear Dr. Terry, <BR/><BR/>I am a "CLLer" from Quebec City and a big fan of your blog Dr. Hamblin. I do consider you as a true Angel for all of us, people fighting this supposedly "good cancer" (... :( ) on a daily basis. <BR/><BR/>Some days, when I get discouraged and when my morale is very low, at least I keep telling to myself that I am lucky to know that Prof. Hamblin is there, somewhere in the cyberworld, to help us, calm our fears and getting the facts straight. Thanks for everything Pr. Hamblin.<BR/><BR/>Your thoughts on identity and multiculturalism are very interesting and although I have lost much interest in politics since I am sick, these topics are still the subject of most heated debate in our country (Canada). Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us.<BR/><BR/>I just have a couple of very specific comments. I hope you will not find them too annoying.<BR/><BR/>Fukuyama says: <I>"... He also identifies the Canadian Law 101 of 1977 as the first exploitation of that gap to the detriment of the whole community. He says that it violates the liberal principle of equal individual rights: French speakers enjoy linguistic rights not shared by English speakers. Quebec was recognized as a "distinct society" in 1995 and as a “nation” in 2006..."</I><BR/><BR/>Although I do like most of Fukuyama's essays, I do not share his point of view that Bill 101 violates individual rights. He is also wrong on a couple of details. Also, I am not too sure we can compare recent muslim communities demands with french canadians (or the afro-americans) situation. We do not view ourselves as immigrants (even though we all are, at some point).<BR/><BR/>Quebec, technically, although much discussed, has never been officially recognized a 'distinct society' and the 'nation recognition' in 2006, by the Canadian House of Commons has still no legal value, as it is not inscribed in the Canadian constitution. Bill 101, also, is a Quebec province law, not a canadian law. <BR/><BR/>When one want to judge the "morality" of a law and the balance between "individual vs group" rights, the whole socio-historical context should be considered. Basically, IMHO, recent politics and language rulings in Quebec (since PQ election, in 1976) are mostly about fear of loss of identity. <BR/><BR/>In evaluating these language laws (Bill 101), one has to consider Canada and Quebec history as well as Quebec's unique geographical situation, as an enclave of French speakers on an English-speaking ocean. Bill 101, in a nutshell, simply impose french schooling for francophones and allophones (and, obviously, not for english québécois or canadians) and the predominance of French on commercial signs restrictions on the use of languages other than French on commercial signs. <BR/><BR/>We can discuss this ad nauseam but all this is now considered a reasonable limit on freedom of expression by the vast majority of people in this province. In the long run, by easing that fear of loss of identity and as Quebec becomes more self-confident and less marginalized, restrictions on francophone and allophone free choice and commercial signs will come to be seen as less reasonable. For a very large majority of people in the Province, Bill 101 is far from perfect but is one we can all live with, for the time being. The pre-1976 situation, at least from a francophone standpoint in Canada, was much worse. <BR/><BR/>I just hope I did not insult or offend anyone with my comments. I wish you all the best. Thanks.<BR/><BR/>DenisAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com