“If Edmond Dantes hadn’t been sent to prison and then managed to escape, Villefort, Danglars and Morcerf would not have gotten what was coming to them.”
A friend who was watching the Jim Caviezel Count of Monte Cristo movie with me said this was why God would sometimes allow bad things to happen to good people. So what about Auguste Ciparis, a jailed criminal who wound up being the only one in Saint-Pierre, Martinique, to survive the eruption of Mount Pelée?
“Maybe God wanted the prisoner to live long enough to learn something.”
And what about all the people who died in the disaster? Especially the babies who clearly weren’t cognitively developed enough to be held responsible for any wrongdoing?
“Well, God called them to him that much sooner.” And presumably, the other people deserving of his grace were similarly blessed.
But what of the others? Did they deserve to die? Did Ciparis truly deserve to live? How could the Judeo-Christian-Islamic god come to these decisions and maintain his reputation for being perfectly just?
In a previous post, I spoke of why I had concluded that the biblical god does not exist. At the time I talked about that being having the following attributes: All-knowing, All-powerful and All-merciful. All-knowing means god knows everything even before it happens. All-powerful means god can do anything. Absolutely anything. All-merciful means showing absolute compassion or forbearance. I explained why I believed he could be two out of three, but not all three at the same time.
Recently, I was reminded that there was a fourth attribute: Perfectly just. Perfectly just means whatever one suffers or enjoys as a result of god’s act or omission is fair or deserved, such as a just reward or just desserts.
For the sake of argument, let’s say the process leading to the eruption of Mount Pelée was independent of god. The all-powerful and all-knowing god could, at the most, have decided to stop it, but he evidently didn’t. His next choice was to allow everyone to die, allow everyone to live, or pick and choose who should die and who should live. To be perfectly just, what should his decision have been? And in doing so, could he also exercise perfect mercy?
Is it possible to be perfectly just and all-merciful? If Ciparis was shown mercy, was he also given what he deserved? Was god both merciful and just when he allowed him to live? Did all those people actually deserve to die (even if some did make it to heaven)? Is that perfect justice?
And did Edmond Dantes deserve to be imprisoned just so his enemies could be punished later? I don’t find that very merciful. I don’t believe it was deserved either. True, he was imprisoned through human deeds. But if we follow my friend’s logic, it had to happen so he could exact his revenge later, and in so doing, see that his enemies get what they deserved.
They say god works in mysterious ways. His ways would also appear to be illogical.
(NOTE: Other sources say there were up to three survivors, including Ciparis.)
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Don’t play the faith game
“You, on the other hand – I have heard you say this before – believe that the universe created itself from nothing, even though you cannot explain how something can come from nothing, and that life also created itself by some kind of chemical or biological necessity which you cannot demonstrate either. It’s all faith. And furthermore, I think it is far more bizarre than mine.”
This excerpt originally appeared in an article by William Gairdner which was most recently displayed at http://www.williamgairdner.com/journal/2006/3/14/on-atheism.html. At one point the post has one person saying “I don’t believe in God,” to which another one, presumably Gairdner himself, asks, “How did you come by that faith?” He goes on to argue that taking a position on the existence or non-existence of God is itself an act of faith.
He almost had me there. I almost had to admit there was some faith involved, or at least some trust, concerning my naturalistic view of the universe. Then, I came to a realisation: apples and oranges have again been mixed. I’ve never understood whether religionists use this ploy deliberately or if it simply makes sense in their worldview. In any case, I almost fell for it. Here is the revised version of what I had almost published.
Scientists have put forward the theory that the universe came to be out of nothing following strictly natural processes. They made careful observations and drew the necessary conclusions. The same could be said for how life came to exist. Scientists have made statements on both matters.
However, science has NOT made any statement concerning the existence of a deity. Some scientists may not believe in God, but many others do. While science is finding less and less reason to think God’s intervention was needed for the universe and life to come into being, there is still nothing that says God does or doesn’t exist. Therefore, it continues to be outside the realm of science.
So we must make a distinction between what science tells us and what it doesn’t it. My position on the existence of God isn’t based on science. I came to that realisation after reading different philosophical arguments on the matter and thinking things through. Faith, or trust in proper authorities, has nothing to do with it. I reached my own conclusion. If faith is involved in any way, then it is faith in my capacity to investigate the matter and draw a satisfactory conclusion.
On scientific issues, however, if having faith was an indictable offense, I would be guilty as charged. You see, I don’t have the time or resources to examine fossils myself, or to go over all the raw data to decide conclusively that climate change is driven by human activity. I can’t know for sure that we really were created out of nothing. Luckily, I’m smart enough to realise that just because I can’t personally confirm one theory, it doesn’t mean the other one wins by default.
I do have faith that conscientious scientists will apply the scientific method to come to logical conclusions. I have faith that arguments and counterarguments among scientists will lead to new knowledge and perspectives, as well as consensus on various issues. I also have faith that we will be told about those pseudo-scientists that have broken the trust I have placed in them. It is up to them to not break that trust. In other words, my faith is provisional. It has to be earned.
This differs from religious faith which is usually absolute. One must believe that the world was created by a supernatural being simply because one was told to or because one’s mind simply prefers a kind of absolute truth. There is no room for competing theories (unless they both stem from the same religious source). The faith doesn’t have to be earned because it has already been proclaimed as inerrant. It just can’t be wrong! And if you DON’T have this faith, a terrible fate awaits you...
In this sense, it is the complete opposite of the faith I have.
So, how do I answer when someone asks, “How did you come by that faith?” I guess I could say, “Faith has nothing to do with my position on a deity’s existence. As for how the world came into being, my faith was earned and must continually be earned.”
This excerpt originally appeared in an article by William Gairdner which was most recently displayed at http://www.williamgairdner.com/journal/2006/3/14/on-atheism.html. At one point the post has one person saying “I don’t believe in God,” to which another one, presumably Gairdner himself, asks, “How did you come by that faith?” He goes on to argue that taking a position on the existence or non-existence of God is itself an act of faith.
He almost had me there. I almost had to admit there was some faith involved, or at least some trust, concerning my naturalistic view of the universe. Then, I came to a realisation: apples and oranges have again been mixed. I’ve never understood whether religionists use this ploy deliberately or if it simply makes sense in their worldview. In any case, I almost fell for it. Here is the revised version of what I had almost published.
Scientists have put forward the theory that the universe came to be out of nothing following strictly natural processes. They made careful observations and drew the necessary conclusions. The same could be said for how life came to exist. Scientists have made statements on both matters.
However, science has NOT made any statement concerning the existence of a deity. Some scientists may not believe in God, but many others do. While science is finding less and less reason to think God’s intervention was needed for the universe and life to come into being, there is still nothing that says God does or doesn’t exist. Therefore, it continues to be outside the realm of science.
So we must make a distinction between what science tells us and what it doesn’t it. My position on the existence of God isn’t based on science. I came to that realisation after reading different philosophical arguments on the matter and thinking things through. Faith, or trust in proper authorities, has nothing to do with it. I reached my own conclusion. If faith is involved in any way, then it is faith in my capacity to investigate the matter and draw a satisfactory conclusion.
On scientific issues, however, if having faith was an indictable offense, I would be guilty as charged. You see, I don’t have the time or resources to examine fossils myself, or to go over all the raw data to decide conclusively that climate change is driven by human activity. I can’t know for sure that we really were created out of nothing. Luckily, I’m smart enough to realise that just because I can’t personally confirm one theory, it doesn’t mean the other one wins by default.
I do have faith that conscientious scientists will apply the scientific method to come to logical conclusions. I have faith that arguments and counterarguments among scientists will lead to new knowledge and perspectives, as well as consensus on various issues. I also have faith that we will be told about those pseudo-scientists that have broken the trust I have placed in them. It is up to them to not break that trust. In other words, my faith is provisional. It has to be earned.
This differs from religious faith which is usually absolute. One must believe that the world was created by a supernatural being simply because one was told to or because one’s mind simply prefers a kind of absolute truth. There is no room for competing theories (unless they both stem from the same religious source). The faith doesn’t have to be earned because it has already been proclaimed as inerrant. It just can’t be wrong! And if you DON’T have this faith, a terrible fate awaits you...
In this sense, it is the complete opposite of the faith I have.
So, how do I answer when someone asks, “How did you come by that faith?” I guess I could say, “Faith has nothing to do with my position on a deity’s existence. As for how the world came into being, my faith was earned and must continually be earned.”
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Following one's nature
“What is required to identify and define homosexuality, is an act. Without homosexual behaviour, there is no homosexuality to worry about, and this fact alone is sufficient grounds to deny protection.” – William Gairdner (http://www.williamgairdner.com/gay-wrongs)
Gairdner doesn’t mince words when it comes to gay rights – he’s generally opposed to them. Notice, however, his implied definition of homosexual. To him, homosexuality is all about what you do. How you feel is irrelevant.
This is hard for me to confess, but it has to be said: When I found myself attracted to girls, it wasn’t something I had asked for. I was quite happy to live my life as a young male child who liked hockey, baseball, dodge ball, cats, TV, board games, comic books (especially DC), and swimming at the cottage. My contact with the female sex was limited mainly to mother, sister, aunts, teachers, etc.
Somewhere around Grade 6, I noticed two things. First, my eyesight wasn’t as good as it used to be. (Two years later, I would finally start wearing glasses.) Secondly, despite my vision problems, girls actually started to look, well, interesting. Just a few months before, I could care less about how a girl’s ass moved when she walked. Soon, though, it took real effort (or the girl turning around) to take my eyes off her ass.
Then, of course, there was the chest. I knew women had breasts. I had seen a few bare ones when I was a preschooler and could tell that women had them under their clothes. But these newer ones on girls who had never had them before captivated me. Soon, I could tell which ones wore a bra. Clearly something was happening.
Whenever I would go to the local drug store to buy comics, I would see magazines that showed naked women on the cover. In other circumstances that are now nebulous, I remember being able to look through a few of them (though not in any store). I also discovered that while our English TV station would never show any nudity, the French channel would show some quite often. This may explain, at least in part, how I became a Francophile.
If these magazines and movies existed, there had to be other people like me who found women’s bodies fascinating. And as far as I could tell, they were all men. There was no one around to really talk to about these things. Luckily, there were nurses in the family and my mother was one of them. She kept medical books at home for reference purposes and I started pouring through them… when she wasn’t around, of course!
As time went on, a clearer picture of what was happening came to me. Like many others my age, I was experiencing puberty and was now fully transforming into a fully sexual being. (Children are sexual beings, too, but not quite in the same way.) More to the point, though, I was turning into a heterosexual being. Why? Simply because I had a combination of these traits: a) I was male; and b) females were my sexual focus.
I hadn’t asked for this. One of my aunts, whom I suppose meant well, started talking about how I would attract a lot of attention from girls because I happened to be quite tall. This was scary! I never had to deal with girls before except as fellow students. Now, they would be on my mind all the time. My aunt even assured me that this was supposed to happen. To make matters worse, my parish priest was adamant that I would burn in hell if I didn’t somehow eradicate my heterosexual feelings.
It took quite a few years, but I eventually came to grips with my heterosexuality. I am what I am and always will be. Women look as fascinating as ever, and I now allow myself to enjoy their company without any feelings of guilt. But with puberty behind me, I can also concentrate on tasks when I must.
I realise now that I was lucky. I have come to see just how much more easily our society accepts heterosexuality, as long as it is controlled, preferably through institutions such as marriage. I can’t imagine what I would have gone through if my sexual focus had been my fellow males.
As far as I’m concerned, I’ve been heterosexual my entire life, or at least since puberty. But if Gairdner is to be believed, I couldn’t possibly have been heterosexual until the day I finally had sex. If we follow his definition to the letter, I only became heterosexual at the age of 19. What was I before then? And what were the gay men before they finally had sex with other men? Neuter? Ambiguous? Fence-sitters?
Implicit in Gairdner’s argument is the wish that homosexuals would deny their very nature. I wasn’t able to deny my heterosexual nature, so I don’t see how I could ask a gay man to deny his.
Gairdner doesn’t mince words when it comes to gay rights – he’s generally opposed to them. Notice, however, his implied definition of homosexual. To him, homosexuality is all about what you do. How you feel is irrelevant.
This is hard for me to confess, but it has to be said: When I found myself attracted to girls, it wasn’t something I had asked for. I was quite happy to live my life as a young male child who liked hockey, baseball, dodge ball, cats, TV, board games, comic books (especially DC), and swimming at the cottage. My contact with the female sex was limited mainly to mother, sister, aunts, teachers, etc.
Somewhere around Grade 6, I noticed two things. First, my eyesight wasn’t as good as it used to be. (Two years later, I would finally start wearing glasses.) Secondly, despite my vision problems, girls actually started to look, well, interesting. Just a few months before, I could care less about how a girl’s ass moved when she walked. Soon, though, it took real effort (or the girl turning around) to take my eyes off her ass.
Then, of course, there was the chest. I knew women had breasts. I had seen a few bare ones when I was a preschooler and could tell that women had them under their clothes. But these newer ones on girls who had never had them before captivated me. Soon, I could tell which ones wore a bra. Clearly something was happening.
Whenever I would go to the local drug store to buy comics, I would see magazines that showed naked women on the cover. In other circumstances that are now nebulous, I remember being able to look through a few of them (though not in any store). I also discovered that while our English TV station would never show any nudity, the French channel would show some quite often. This may explain, at least in part, how I became a Francophile.
If these magazines and movies existed, there had to be other people like me who found women’s bodies fascinating. And as far as I could tell, they were all men. There was no one around to really talk to about these things. Luckily, there were nurses in the family and my mother was one of them. She kept medical books at home for reference purposes and I started pouring through them… when she wasn’t around, of course!
As time went on, a clearer picture of what was happening came to me. Like many others my age, I was experiencing puberty and was now fully transforming into a fully sexual being. (Children are sexual beings, too, but not quite in the same way.) More to the point, though, I was turning into a heterosexual being. Why? Simply because I had a combination of these traits: a) I was male; and b) females were my sexual focus.
I hadn’t asked for this. One of my aunts, whom I suppose meant well, started talking about how I would attract a lot of attention from girls because I happened to be quite tall. This was scary! I never had to deal with girls before except as fellow students. Now, they would be on my mind all the time. My aunt even assured me that this was supposed to happen. To make matters worse, my parish priest was adamant that I would burn in hell if I didn’t somehow eradicate my heterosexual feelings.
It took quite a few years, but I eventually came to grips with my heterosexuality. I am what I am and always will be. Women look as fascinating as ever, and I now allow myself to enjoy their company without any feelings of guilt. But with puberty behind me, I can also concentrate on tasks when I must.
I realise now that I was lucky. I have come to see just how much more easily our society accepts heterosexuality, as long as it is controlled, preferably through institutions such as marriage. I can’t imagine what I would have gone through if my sexual focus had been my fellow males.
As far as I’m concerned, I’ve been heterosexual my entire life, or at least since puberty. But if Gairdner is to be believed, I couldn’t possibly have been heterosexual until the day I finally had sex. If we follow his definition to the letter, I only became heterosexual at the age of 19. What was I before then? And what were the gay men before they finally had sex with other men? Neuter? Ambiguous? Fence-sitters?
Implicit in Gairdner’s argument is the wish that homosexuals would deny their very nature. I wasn’t able to deny my heterosexual nature, so I don’t see how I could ask a gay man to deny his.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Random Thoughts
Last time I wrote about the post-Ning situation, Skinbook (the original) had bitten the dust while Free Range Naturists (FRN) and Bare Friends International (BFI) had struck out on their own. Now it would appear that BFI is no more as well.
For the past few weeks a message saying they are temporarily down and will be back soon has been permanently (or so it seems) set on their site, as minutes turned into hours, hours into days and days into weeks. If anything was being done to bring it back, there was no indication of this, not even a general email explaining what is going on. Now, there is another site there, one which is affiliated with godaddy.com.
Have the creators given up? Or is there a technical problem that has forced the creators to go back to the drawing board?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Many people have trouble telling the difference between swinging and naturism despite there being a clear distinction between the two. In Quebec, the Fédération québécoise de naturisme has published a statement on the matter. It can be read in the original French at http://www.vivrenu.ca/avis_aux_internautes.htm. Here is my translation:
"Notice to Internet Users: FQN position concerning swinging and the misleading use of the term "naturism"
"The aims of true naturism are to restore the body to its rightful place and the discovery of the pleasures of living in harmony with nature, without the clichés or fantasies (with which it is often associated). Naturism, of which nudity is but one component, is a life philosophy based on tolerance, respect for one’s self, others and the environment. Naturism is not a sexual activity in any way, shape or form.
"Although the Fédération québécoise de naturisme (Federation) expresses no opinion or judgment regarding the practice of swinging, nor any other sexual activity between consenting adults, the Federation hereby wishes to inform the public that all references to the Federation, including the use of its name or logo, linking to its website or mentioning of the Federation in any other activity or publication, by any person, association or company dedicated to swinging or similar activities, which may suggest that the Federation encourages, approves or otherwise gives its consent to such activities, is strictly prohibited. We reject any information or advertising promoting such activity which would be contrary to the mission of the Federation or to its philosophy, and any such information should not be considered valid."
While not all naturist sites have a statement of this type, they usually have other information clearly indicating that naturism is one thing and swinging is another, and that neither need include the other. Indeed, many swingers aren’t interested in nude recreation that doesn’t include sex. And some naturists eschew any type of sex that would not be condoned by the local parish priest.
Naturism and swinging are NOT the same.
But swingers can be interested in naturism and can be role models to more “vanilla” people who could unintentionally misbehave due to honestly held misconceptions about naturism.
For the past few weeks a message saying they are temporarily down and will be back soon has been permanently (or so it seems) set on their site, as minutes turned into hours, hours into days and days into weeks. If anything was being done to bring it back, there was no indication of this, not even a general email explaining what is going on. Now, there is another site there, one which is affiliated with godaddy.com.
Have the creators given up? Or is there a technical problem that has forced the creators to go back to the drawing board?
Inquiring minds want to know.
- - -
Many people have trouble telling the difference between swinging and naturism despite there being a clear distinction between the two. In Quebec, the Fédération québécoise de naturisme has published a statement on the matter. It can be read in the original French at http://www.vivrenu.ca/avis_aux_internautes.htm. Here is my translation:
"Notice to Internet Users: FQN position concerning swinging and the misleading use of the term "naturism"
"The aims of true naturism are to restore the body to its rightful place and the discovery of the pleasures of living in harmony with nature, without the clichés or fantasies (with which it is often associated). Naturism, of which nudity is but one component, is a life philosophy based on tolerance, respect for one’s self, others and the environment. Naturism is not a sexual activity in any way, shape or form.
"Although the Fédération québécoise de naturisme (Federation) expresses no opinion or judgment regarding the practice of swinging, nor any other sexual activity between consenting adults, the Federation hereby wishes to inform the public that all references to the Federation, including the use of its name or logo, linking to its website or mentioning of the Federation in any other activity or publication, by any person, association or company dedicated to swinging or similar activities, which may suggest that the Federation encourages, approves or otherwise gives its consent to such activities, is strictly prohibited. We reject any information or advertising promoting such activity which would be contrary to the mission of the Federation or to its philosophy, and any such information should not be considered valid."
While not all naturist sites have a statement of this type, they usually have other information clearly indicating that naturism is one thing and swinging is another, and that neither need include the other. Indeed, many swingers aren’t interested in nude recreation that doesn’t include sex. And some naturists eschew any type of sex that would not be condoned by the local parish priest.
Naturism and swinging are NOT the same.
But swingers can be interested in naturism and can be role models to more “vanilla” people who could unintentionally misbehave due to honestly held misconceptions about naturism.
Friday, October 8, 2010
Dismanteling the Clock
“It was certainly not intended to be two political nations. This is unmistakably plain. Over and over again, the ‘Canadian’ Fathers of Confederation, French, English, Irish and Scots, declare emphatically that they were creating a new nation.” – Eugene Forsey
I saw this quote for the first time in a brief prepared by Ron Leitch, who was the time head of the Alliance for the Preservation of English in Canada. The brief was published in J.V. Andrew’s book, Enough! The same quote later appeared in a book by William Gairdner called The Trouble With Canada, where I took this quote along with the emphasis as it appears in that book.
I don’t have access to Eugene Forsey’s original speech so I can’t comment on its meaning or whether this quote was taken out of context. But it’s interesting that people who want only one official language in Canada, and want that language to be English, would use this quote to denigrate the idea of two founding nations, or two founding peoples. The idea is that nothing that happened before 1867 matters, and we’ll all live together in this nice new English nation that, all the same, continues to bow to the British Crown.
When the first four British colonies decided to unite into a country called Canada, the presence of an almost homogeneously French-speaking territory commonly called Lower Canada could hardly be missed. In fact, from the start, certain allowances were made, such as section 133 of the British North America Act which allows for French to be used in the Canadian Parliament as well as in Quebec’s government institutions.
Therefore, from the start, efforts were made to accommodate the French. These weren’t foreigners or immigrants. They were there from the start and already constituted a People. This fact could not be ignored. And this fact is part of our common history.
The initial goodwill was limited and, in some cases, quite temporary. To my knowledge, there was nothing in the Constitution that mandated an English-speaking public service. It just seemed to happen naturally. Unfortunately, the natural course of events also tended to shut out French Canadians who couldn’t speak English, and sometimes even those who could. In Sorry, I Don’t Speak French, former Prime Minister Paul Martin tells author Graham Fraser about the father of one of his friends, a man who couldn’t rise any further in the public service for the simple reason that he was French. What should have been nothing more than an inconvenience was instead a hindrance, one that many people who are against bilingualism would like to see again.
We ignore history at our own peril. The French nation we now call Quebec already existed in 1867. As time went on, French developed further in New Brunswick as well thanks to the Acadians, so much so that the province is now the only province in Canada to be officially bilingual. French people have also existed in the rest of Canada, and certainly as far back as 1867. Their numbers are few, too few for any real political significance, but their presence cannot be denied.
Even in Ontario, French was already present in 1867. When French education in Ontario was outlawed in 1912, it was purportedly to prevent other “immigrant” groups from demanding public education in their own languages as well. Yet, the French in Ontario weren’t immigrants. To say their rights to public education in French was merely a privilege afforded by the English majority is, to say the least, disingenuous.
And we certainly can’t forget the Red River uprising in Manitoba and the subsequent hanging of Métis leader Louis Riel. Whether he’s a hero or a scoundrel depends a lot on where you stand on the language issue.
If Quebec ever left Canada, English Canada could not turn back the clock by declaring English to be the only official language. Without Quebec, the clock would be effectively dismantled.
I saw this quote for the first time in a brief prepared by Ron Leitch, who was the time head of the Alliance for the Preservation of English in Canada. The brief was published in J.V. Andrew’s book, Enough! The same quote later appeared in a book by William Gairdner called The Trouble With Canada, where I took this quote along with the emphasis as it appears in that book.
I don’t have access to Eugene Forsey’s original speech so I can’t comment on its meaning or whether this quote was taken out of context. But it’s interesting that people who want only one official language in Canada, and want that language to be English, would use this quote to denigrate the idea of two founding nations, or two founding peoples. The idea is that nothing that happened before 1867 matters, and we’ll all live together in this nice new English nation that, all the same, continues to bow to the British Crown.
When the first four British colonies decided to unite into a country called Canada, the presence of an almost homogeneously French-speaking territory commonly called Lower Canada could hardly be missed. In fact, from the start, certain allowances were made, such as section 133 of the British North America Act which allows for French to be used in the Canadian Parliament as well as in Quebec’s government institutions.
Therefore, from the start, efforts were made to accommodate the French. These weren’t foreigners or immigrants. They were there from the start and already constituted a People. This fact could not be ignored. And this fact is part of our common history.
The initial goodwill was limited and, in some cases, quite temporary. To my knowledge, there was nothing in the Constitution that mandated an English-speaking public service. It just seemed to happen naturally. Unfortunately, the natural course of events also tended to shut out French Canadians who couldn’t speak English, and sometimes even those who could. In Sorry, I Don’t Speak French, former Prime Minister Paul Martin tells author Graham Fraser about the father of one of his friends, a man who couldn’t rise any further in the public service for the simple reason that he was French. What should have been nothing more than an inconvenience was instead a hindrance, one that many people who are against bilingualism would like to see again.
We ignore history at our own peril. The French nation we now call Quebec already existed in 1867. As time went on, French developed further in New Brunswick as well thanks to the Acadians, so much so that the province is now the only province in Canada to be officially bilingual. French people have also existed in the rest of Canada, and certainly as far back as 1867. Their numbers are few, too few for any real political significance, but their presence cannot be denied.
Even in Ontario, French was already present in 1867. When French education in Ontario was outlawed in 1912, it was purportedly to prevent other “immigrant” groups from demanding public education in their own languages as well. Yet, the French in Ontario weren’t immigrants. To say their rights to public education in French was merely a privilege afforded by the English majority is, to say the least, disingenuous.
And we certainly can’t forget the Red River uprising in Manitoba and the subsequent hanging of Métis leader Louis Riel. Whether he’s a hero or a scoundrel depends a lot on where you stand on the language issue.
If Quebec ever left Canada, English Canada could not turn back the clock by declaring English to be the only official language. Without Quebec, the clock would be effectively dismantled.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)