Brennus : Canada-Quebec/English-French.

"I read an article by a Canadian journalist in "Macleans Magazine" last year who said that "Canada is not a true bilingual country but one that simply tolerates another language." I'm inclined to think that he's right."

I don't think, by saying that a language tolerates an other one, it means that one of the language only exists because the other one wants it by its superiority and because it was in the place before the other one. It is wrong. Does it mean the indians can speak their own language because the English language tolerates it? Is the english language superior because of its quality? I don't know. But this shows how with your point of view you contribute to the globalization of this world.

Shame on Antimoon which is only a **** and became borring. Anyway this is not serious, Antimoon is not the place to speak seriously about something.

Au contraire. Et c'est un exploit quotidien.

Brennus : « Rather, you have a situation where most Canadian citizens prefer not to speak French however they still feel that French Canadians have a right to speak it if they wish, and that it would be harsh, maybe even immoral, to outlaw it. »

Tu as une façon très élastique de présenter les choses. La situation du "Canada" n'est pas celle que tu décris. Au Québec, par exemple, le français est langue officielle mais l'anglais jouit du statut de langue minoritaire protégée. La mjorité des Québécois ne souhaite pas que l'usage de l'anglais soit considéré comme illégal. Ce serait immoral.

Le "statut" du français au "Canada" (1969) est une farce puisque le français — avec les langues amérindiennes — est la langue du Canada au sens fort de ce nom.




Brennus : « (...) I do not like the United Nations. »

Ah bon et pourquoi ?

" I am in no way, a globalist, Nico, and I do not like the United Nations. "

Globalisation has more to do with the United States than with the united nations.
At least the UN has a plural view of the globalised world.

"I do not like the United Nations."

Isn't that the G.Bush motto ?

<< All the Canadian author said was that Canada is not a true bilingual country, in the sense that say, Belgium or Switzerland is.>>

Brennus,

what you find ''true bilingual'' in belgium ?

absolutely the most of people speak french *or* dutch. Some can speak both (the brussels people) but it is not typical in this country. Also, there's not friendship at all between those two language regions.

Are you referring to the language regions of Canada or Belgium?

If it's Canada, then I agree. There are many people outside of Quebec that do not like French or the people that speak it in Canada. I suppose its the same reason that many Americans don't like Canada.

If it's Belgium you're talking about, then would you care to explain further.

I'm referring to the language regions of belgium.

I can explain you some things about the regions : there are 4 :

1. Flanders (speak dutch)
2. Wallonie (speak french)
3. Ostkantonen (speak german)
4 . brussels capitale (bilingual dutch -french)

Bewteen flanders and wallonie there are many arguments and political differences, sometimes a scandal.

if i didn't answered your question, what you would like to know about ?

Brennus : « Même à Québec, la plupart des personnes non-françaises (les Anglo-canadiens, les Juifs, Mohawks, Eskimos etc.) (...) ».

Mais, Brennus, les Québécois eux aussi ne sont pas des Français. À part quelques touristes et expatriés hexagonaux, il y a 100 % de personnes non-françaises au Québec.





Brennus : « Je n'aime pas les Nations Unies parce que c'est une organisation non réalisable et utopique. Les Nations Unies datent d'un temps quand les intellectuels et politiciens ont cru qu'une telle organisation préviendrait des guerres (1945-1946). Pourtant, depuis ce temps-là, il y a eu beaucoup de guerres dans le monde. »

Les Nations-Unies sont loin d'être une utopie : elles fonctionnent très bien dès lors qu'elles ne sont pas délibérément sabotées (par les États-Unis par exemple —> guerre illégale contre l'Iraq en 2003).





Brennus : « Il y a une majorité silencieuse des américains qui croient dans la patience en ce qui concerne la France. »

Je dirais plutôt l'inverse : c'est le monde entier qui perd patience à cause du comportement des États-unis et de l'apathie de leur population.

I agree, Swizerland/Belgium/and Canada are not bilingual...
Only some regions in Sw/Be/Ca are francophone.
But sadly, a minority wants to make the whole country (Sw/Be/Ca) in this case a francophone country.

Francophone people would want that everyone in Antwep,Brugge/Zuerich/Vancouver speaks French.

They should grow up.
When people the majority refuses to be represented by minority French as an exlusive official language, the minority wants to split.

It's franphone mentality.
French in Belgium, Switzerland and Canada has much better rights that Occitan, Catalan or Bretonnic in France.

So, Quebec (francophone minority in Canada) and Walonie (francophone minority in Belgium) can put an end on Canada and Belgium integrity
but when it comes to minorities in France, it is impossible?

If Quebec goes away from Canada, if Walonie goes away from Belgium,
Britanny should go away from France as well.


Belgium is often seen as a Francophone country, but 60 % people there are Dutch-speaking. You cannot hush 60% people of your country and impose another language (French) on them. It's horrible.

If Quebec gets independent, it will certainly lead to Belgium and Switzerlands' end.


The only one country that is bilingual/trilingual is Luxemburg since most people use all 3 languages there.

Llorenna : « Francophone people would want that everyone in Antwep,Brugge/Zuerich/Vancouver speaks French. »
Non, c'est plutôt un cliché dont tu es le véhicule.


Llorenna : « It's fran*CO*phone mentality. French in Belgium, Switzerland and Canada has much better rights that Occitan, Catalan or Bretonnic in France. »
Ça n'a rien à voir avec la mentalité mais avec les statistiques : le français est parlé par une part significative des populations suisse, belge et "canadienne" (entre 20 & 35 %) tandis que les langues d'Oc, le catalan, le breton et le gallo ne représentent pas 10 % des locuteurs de leurs aires linguistiques respectives — ce qui ne veut pas dire qu'il ne faille pas les découvrir et les protéger.


Llorenna : « So, Quebec (francophone minority in Canada) and Walonie (francophone minority in Belgium) can put an end on Canada and Belgium integrity but when it comes to minorities in France, it is impossible? »
Le français est la langue majoritaire du Québec, la langue offcielle du "Canada" et du Québec, la langue majoritaire de la Wallonie, la langue majoritaire de Bruxelles, la langue majoritaire de la langue de la Communauté français de Belgique, la langue officielle de la Belgique, de la Wallonie, de Bruxelles et de la Communauté français de Belgique.
D'autre part les francophones belges ne souhaite pas l'éclatement de la Belgique : c'est plutôt les néerlandophones qui le souhaitent. En revanche, pour le "Canada", le Québec francophone a déjà majoritairement voté en faveur de son indépendance : le vote a échoué de peu en raison de l'inéquité de la campagne et de la manipulation de certains listes élecorales. Mais ça n'est qu'une question de temps en effet avant que le Québec prenne son destin en main.
Quant à la France, le français y est langue majoritaire et officielle. Le sentiment sécessioniste est quasi-inexistant. On peut le regretter, mais c'est comme ça.


Llorenna : « If Quebec goes away from Canada, if Walonie goes away from Belgium, Britanny should go away from France as well. »
Compte tenu de tout ce qi précède, peux-tu préciser ce qui fonde, selon toi, le parallèle entre le Québec, la Wallonie et la Bretagne ?


Llorenna : « You cannot hush 60% people of your country and impose another language (French) on them. It's horrible. »
Mais c'est exactement l'inverse qui est en train de se produire à Bruxelles : une minorité de 20 % de néerlandophones tente d'imposer le flamand à une majorité de 80 % de francophones (sans succès heureusement).


Llorenna : « If Quebec gets independent, it will certainly lead to Belgium and Switzerlands' end. »
Pourquoi ?


Llorenna : « The only one country that is bilingual/trilingual is Luxemburg since most people use all 3 languages there. »
Dont le français, ce qui ruine tes "arguments" précédents.
N'oublie pas qu'il ya la Suisse aussi.

Llorenna : « If Quebec gets independent, it will certainly lead to Belgium and Switzerlands' end. »
Pourquoi ?

Porque eu digo assim. Seu biruta!Você dançou feio.

Llorenna,

It's evident you don't know nothing about belgium ; the french-speakers not want separation. Some (minority ) of ducth-speakers wish independance because they are fed up of give wallonie (francophones) financial subvention.

This days, not the flemich and not the french-speakers are trying take over the entire Belgium for make everyone speak one language. There's a linguistic divide - nobody deny this, but it's differnt that attempt dominance.

What will occur in quebec, this make veyr little differenec in Belgium. Not in the politic or linguistic geography- of course people would discuss some major changes, but this also would be in all the world if Canada will split up.

Brennus,

Sorry, i misunderstood you, thank you for the reply.

Llorenna,

Let see what we can say about your post from: Thu Sep 28, 2006 2:29 am GMT which is amazingly full of non sense
I agree, Swizerland/Belgium/and Canada are not bilingual...
"""Only some regions in Sw/Be/Ca are francophone."""
It is clear you don't know anything about the Swiss, in that country there aren't only german or french spakers, there are also italian speakers and romanche speakers.
Nobody wants the Switzerland being a francophone country, DO YOU KNOW WHAT IS A FEDERATION???!!!!


"Francophone people": what do you mean by francophone people, who are they?? Are they those from: Quebec? France? Rumania Swiss? Senegal? Egypt? Algeria?...????????????
They don't compose any unity, they aren't a nation, they don't have any common background.

"the minority wants to split."
It depends where, in France nobody wants to split, even in Corsica. It depends of your history. An identity is ALWAYS ARTIFICIAL! you can be canadian, it is artificial, you can be french it is artificial. And it is dangerous to play with that statement. Being breton, french, or US people DOES NOT MEAN ANYTHING.

"Walonie goes away from Belgium"
Then Belgium does not exist anymore. Because Belgium is precisly the UNIFICATION BETWEEN FLEMMISH AND WALLOON people with 1 king.

Britanny cannot go away from France, it is one of the oldest french area. If you think in terms of minority in France (which is difficult), you would separate France into more than 100 minorities, FRANCE WOULD NOT EXIST. THE UNIFICATION OF THIS DIFFERENT AREAS IS THE ESSENCE OF THE FRANCE.

"Belgium is often seen as a Francophone country, but 60 % people there are Dutch-speaking""
60% are not dutch speaking but flemmish speaking...



Luxembourg is certainly not bilingual or trilingual.