#quebec-bashing

[harseer]

Barring the username because you know this person does this for the sake of ragebait and attention (and i guess it worked on me). I wouldn't be posting about it, but i saw the first one gain a lot of interaction on r/CuratedTumblr and it disappointed me.

So, to be clear, the law isn't forcing pork down muslim people's throat as this person (and i can believe this was unintentional) makes it sound. It's also not forcing pork on the menu just because muslim people avoid it. I mean, pork every day?? that's wildly impractical. What Bill 9 says is « No institution or body referred to in section 3 may, in providing food services, offer exclusively a diet based on a religious precept or a tradition ». Yes, it is petty and stupid. but come on, compared to what's going on in other places of the world this is baby shit.

I also really don't want to defend Bill 9, It's a vain attempt by the Legault government to appeal to nationalism right and keep hold of whatever seats they can for next year since they've recently been exposed for the phenomenally incompetent crew morons they are. It's also full of actually horrid shit like banning future teachers from kindergarten to university from wearing religious symbols in a way that's clearly targeting Hijabs, Sikh turbans, etc disproportionately. You should've used that OP instead of the meal stuff.

But that's not "Quebec". It's not "Quebecois". La CAQ is (relatively) fresh off a huge scandal and polling like 20% in the polls right now. Every other major party has slammed the bill. Every respectable quebecois media outlet has called it out as [insert previous paragraph here]. But somehow the bill shows the collective failing of a nation rotten to the core. Definitely not just the same hateful rhetoric, targeted at "the right people" this time.

Believe it or not, we did pull off a revolution. Once upon a time the catholic church had its oppressive grips deep into every facet of the education and medical system. And then, one decade, we woke up and said "no more", booted them out, and declared that the government should be separate from any religion's influence. And we also established strong rights and social nets for our more vulnerable members, which was pretty cool. And it was all done without bloodshed, so we called it "La révolution tranquille". That's the myth that animates québecois provincial politics to this day, and yeah, it's not a utopia and now right-wingers twist it for xenophobia, but for fuck's sake, at its core, laïcité is still a righteous concept and a heritage to be proud of and we're still one of the most progressive provinces of Canada. You know what you'd have right now if you took out Quebec? Pierre Poilievre as Prime Minister. Of a majority government. Yeah. Think about that.

I do love this place. It could be better, but it's pretty sweet and the people are good. So fuck you OP.

[qc8anddoublestandards]

[qc8anddoublestandards]

http://www.ledevoir.com/societe/le-devoir-de-philo/451080/le-devoir-de-philo-lord-acton-et-le-nationalisme-imperial-du-roc This article explains two different conceptions of nationalism : State nationalism and ethnic nationalism. State nationalism is the kind of nationalism supported in the ROC. This kind of nationalism claims that the only valid form of nationalism is coming from and in submission to the state. In this view of nationalism, borders are drawn indiscriminately and rally various nations under the same state without oppressing them. It is expected that nationalities will self-sacrifice for the greater good of the state. Ethnic nationalism is the kind of nationalism supported in Québec. It is basically a nation expressing the desire to exert their right to self-determination and giving no regard to the state or borders that were imposed on them. It often happens when state nationalism has failed to yield its utopic society. It is not based on a political border but in common aspirations. It is described by Lord Acton as something tribal, animal, something that can only lead to a disorganized, feudal, tribal society or something. Lord Acton regarded the French as uncivilized because of their Revolution. Quoting him : “The truth is, that France is out of itself - the moral France is separated from the geographical. The master of the house is expelled, and the robbers are in possession.” He didn’t like the idea that a people may overthrow their governments and institutions if they deemed them unfit to their desires and aspirations. He complained about how the revolution had taught people in Europe that the state should be subordinate to its people’s will and desires. Because you know, what the people want doesn’t matter as much as being civilized. However, Lord Acton does recognize that a “superior race” claiming the right over a community of various “unequal races”, ends up in the “inferior races” being “exterminated, or reduced to servitude, or outlawed, or put in a condition of dependence”.

Therefore, he concludes : “If we take the establishment of liberty for the realisation of moral duties to be the end of civil society, we must conclude that those states are substantially the most perfect which, like the British and Austrian Empires, include various distinct nationalities without oppressing them.” - ANGLOSUPREMACYLOL He’s only partly right. Lord Acton didn’t believe that ethnic nationalism could yield a civilized society. So he thought that state nationalism was superior. However, history has proven that ethnic nationalism can yield civilized societies. Also, he didn’t take into account that sometimes, you just can’t reconcile various nations and that sometimes, they just can’t work together. So his view kind of is an utopia. State nationalism is NOT superior to ethnic nationalism. These beliefs in a pseudo moral superiority of the British ways of state nationalism is what allows the ROC to think they are morally right and have some moral obligation to shit on Québec and impose their ways on us. This is what they use to justify assimilation and all the guilt-free racism they express toward us. “It’s not racist, it’s just true.” Amirite? Clearly, they didn’t get Lord Acton’s memo saying that oppression is bad. Because they’re using this moral high ground to impose their “superior” state nationalism on us and denigrate our “inferior” ethnic nationalism. But both didn’t get the memo that state nationalism is not superior to ethnic nationalism.