[gaulois]

[QUOTE BY= lesouris] ... The Orange Order is like the Ku Klux Klan, except they target mainly Irish Catholics. <br /> ...<br /> I'm not saying that the capture of Quebec wasn't disgusting, but the English in Ireland actually attempted the genocide of the Irish people.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> The Orangemen have also targeted all Francophones *throughout* Canada. They failed in Quebec. I believe there were more francos than Irish people in the ROC. By lobbying John A MacDonald and getting Sir Wilfrid Laurier to back down on protecting francophones in the ROC (for having their own school), they caused exactly the same genocide on FHQs as they caused on Irish people; I will note that many Irish people were happy to escape the Brits and "integrated" with Francophones, perhaps through a common religion. At least the Irish did not lose their language and neither were they the first settler from the "West" on our Land.

[Marcarc]

You should really read that post that I put up from the article on Orangemen. While the order is still quite predominant in Northern Ireland, it certainly isn't here in Canada (although I really don't know about PEI). Keep in mind that protestants have said the same thing about being run out by Mary queen of scots, but you are quite right about the order in the 1800's, as my earlier post says. At some point though we have to let go of certain things in the past if they don't still resonate, I have ancestors of all stripes, much like many canadians, if I took up the cause of each of their repression I'd be in therapy with a schizoid disorder. Persecution in the past is of course unpleasant, but if it isn't occurring in the present then I don't see how somebody is entitled to sympathy because of something that an ancient relative experienced. <br /> If catholics are persecuted today though I'd be interested to know. Somebody once made the point that Kennedy was the only catholic president in the states and look what happened to him. I don't think current catholics have much to fear on the oppression front. Quebec stopped being dominated by catholicism in the sixties. In my home province of New Brunswick the Orange order was quite active because of the large number of french and irish catholics who had to be 'kept in line'.

[lesouris]

[QUOTE BY= gaulois] At least the Irish did not lose their language and neither were they the first settler from the "West" on our Land.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> I don't think you understand that the Irish do have their own language; unsurprisingly named Irish. It is part of the Gaelic branch of the Celtic family of languages. The British destroyed the Irish language so that today only 20 000 Irishmen out of a 6 million in total in Ireland speak their ancestral language, and this number is always decreasing. When the famine struck, English had already spread across Ireland, but 2 million people out of a then 8 million population spoke it. French is still spoken in Quebec and it is still spoken in France, in both places by a majority. The Irish language has no where but a few coastal towns in Western Ireland. Does that mean the destruction of French communities outside of Quebec right? Of course not. Perhaps this is why both our peoples have historically got along so well, a fear of the English (of course religion played a part, but throughout history, even before the Church of England separated from Rome, the French and Irish have traditionally been close politically).<br /> <br /> I always loved that Canadian Heritage Minute with the Irish orphans in Quebec, and the Quebecers took them into their homes and let them keep their names. The French in Canada, I think, sympathized with a people who had been under British occupation like themselves - and the Orange Order hated that, especially since both our peoples were devoted Catholics (unlike in France and its [former] colonies, Ireland was never devotedly Catholic until the British arrived and it suddenly meant much more).<br /> <br /> Erin go Bragh and Vive le Canada!

[gaulois]

[QUOTE BY= lesouris] <br /> I don't think you understand that the Irish do have their own language; unsurprisingly named Irish. It is part of the Gaelic branch of the Celtic family of languages. The British destroyed the Irish language so that today only 20 000 Irishmen out of a 6 million in total in Ireland speak their ancestral language, and this number is always decreasing![/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Apologies for my ignorance and thanks for the clarification. I assume it is fair to state that the damage that Brits inflicted to the Irish was already done by the time they came to North America, i.e. they came here already speaking mainly English (and not Irish). I believe that Gaelic was also used in Northern France (in fact by the Gaulois!) and got a similar treatment from the French. My ancestors came to Canada in the 17th century speaking French or an old dialect of.

[lesouris]

[QUOTE BY= gaulois]I believe that Gaelic was also used in Northern France (in fact by the Gaulois!) and got a similar treatment from the French. My ancestors came to Canada in the 17th century speaking French or an old dialect of.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> It is very sad how in France a government policy of assimilation of those who speak regional languages is depriving the world of the rich linguistic mosaic France was, and to a lesser extent, still is. Languages like Breton, Basque, Gallo, Alsatian, Flemish, and the many languages/dialects of Southern France are all very beautiful, and all are evidence of France's diverse history.<br /> <br /> What the French government is pursuing today is very similar to the Orange Order's goal of "One Language" (well, not to the same extent any more since the EU has a treaty protecting regional languages).

[gaulois]

[QUOTE BY= lesouris] <br /> What the French government is pursuing today is very similar to the Orange Order's goal of "One Language" (well, not to the same extent any more since the EU has a treaty protecting reginal languages).[/QUOTE]<br /> I do not agree whatsoever with your comparison , even with the EU qualifier.

[Perturbed]

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] First, this is off topic, sorry, but that kind of ignorance just can't be passed on to viewers. The Senate has to ratify EVERY bill that comes through Parliament, so they are far from powerless. Whichever party is in power rushes to fill up the senate with their own nominees. The liberals in fact could not have gotten out of Nafta or gotten rid of the GST (during their first term) simply because the senate had a slim majority of conservatives. Go read newspapers from the eighties when Mulroney was in power, he had a rough time because since the liberals had been in power so long the senate was stuffed with liberal nominees. This has almost always been the case so basically you see them 'doing nothing' when the liberals are in power, but suddenly becoming the conscience of the canadian people when the conservatives get in and challenging everything. But NEVER think of them as powerless, they hold an equal amount of power to Parliament, they are 'the chamber of sober second thought' or some such rubbish. There is a damn good reason why westerners (and in fact a majority of canadians) want an elected senate.<br /> <br /> Anyway, sorry about that. As far as the Orangemen go, at the risk of being unpopular, I would equate what they did with sovereigntists. As the earlier quote suggested, the government was set up to reflect those 'british' institutions that are now the status quo. Some here may think that the system is fine and just needs different 'leaders'. That's just plain silly. The leaders in canada right now are doing what they've always done in canada, which is look out for the monied interests. It is the system which keeps us from making any of the changes that are proposed even at this website. You can barely even get elected with our First past the post electoral system, every bill that protects media interests favours the corporate media so you can't get your message out, and of course even if you got a majority of plain old canadian folk as representatives who wanted to protect canada you'd have a senate that would laugh at every bill you attempted to pass. <br /> So the ideals of the orangemen certainly came to fruition when the dominion of canada was born, so they certainly wouldn't have any need of 'reform'. The reform party really was a grassroots organization initially so I think it would be presumptuous to call, say, a ukrainian immigrant in Saskatchewan who was a reform party member an 'orangeman'. Now, whether Preston Manning or other leaders were orangemen I don't know, I do know that he wouldn't have gotten far if he wasn't representing his constituents. [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> <br /> I don't believe most Canadian want an elected senate, but point taken.<br /> <br /> 2 questions:<br /> <br /> 1 - Why then di the senate blovk Muleoney's free-trade bill before the 1988 election? Was it the pressure from Canadians, or was it party loyalties? (ORchrd mentione how big the letter-writing campaign was.)<br /> <br /> 2 - How long before a PM can appoint his own senators? Is it only when they retire?

[lesouris]

[QUOTE BY= gaulois] [QUOTE BY= lesouris] <br /> What the French government is pursuing today is very similar to the Orange Order's goal of "One Language" (well, not to the same extent any more since the EU has a treaty protecting reginal languages).[/QUOTE]<br /> I do not agree whatsoever with your comparison , even with the EU qualifier.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Would you mind explaining why, because I see no difference between the two groups' linguistic assimilation goals. The French government has for a long time made it impossible for non-French speakers in France to learn their own language in public schools (even in areas where non-French speakers make up the majority). The French government has tired (unsuccessfully in some cases) to eliminate these endangered languages.<br /> <br /> Of course I am not saying the French government believes in the racist crap the Orange Order stands for, just the stuff about one language for one country.

[Marcarc]

Perturbed, check out the polls, by far canadians poll for an elected senate. It is closer to being a reality, several premiers have endorsed it, and of course it is one of the basic building boxes of the western reform movement. Even Martin had endorsed it before becoming PM, we'll see what happens there. There really is considerable pressure on politician's these days, they are trying to bring in some more democratic measures to at least give the appearance of democracy. I think you are confusing your view with canadians rejection of the Charlottetown Accord, which would have granted a triple E senate, however, the CA had so much in it that tracing people's rejection to one specific thrust of the accord is pretty specious. I personally voted against it on the basis that too many people in government wanted it and it was my opportunity to 'stick it to the man' (I was young, what can I say). <br /> <br /> For your other questions technically it is up to the governor general who and when senators are named. I believe there are ten openings right now. They must retire when they are 75, and it's a general policy that those selected are older when they are nominated, but that's not always true. It's been practise for a long time that the PM selects them though, but the queen always has the power to put the squeeze on (she just never chooses to use it). It is pretty much up to the PM when and how they want to select senators.<br /> <br /> As far as your comment about free trade, like I said, typically the senate represents a party, usually liberal, so if they can help out the liberal party by suddenly becoming the voice of the people then so much the better for the party. Canadians can write all the letters they want, it didn't stop free trade or the GST, both of which the majority of canadians opposed. <br /> <br /> Just to reply to a couple of other comments here, I don't think those numbers are quite correct in the numbers of Irish who speak Irish. It is an official language and when I spent time there a while ago I think there were more than 20,000 people in Dublin alone who spoke Irish. We had trouble in some of the suburbs where even fast food clerks couldn't speak english. I don't think we need fear that Irish is going anywhere. The other comment was that what the english did to the Irish was in the past, which I think could easily be debated, if anybody were so inclined (I'm not)

[gaulois]

[QUOTE BY= gaulois] <br /> ...<br /> I assume it is fair to state that the damage that Brits inflicted to the Irish was already done by the time they came to North America, i.e. they came here already speaking mainly English (and not Irish).<br /> ...<br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> Meant the linguistic assimilation damage (and not the other ones such as religion and culture).

[gaulois]

[QUOTE BY= lesouris] Would you mind explaining why, because I see no difference between the two groups' linguistic assimilation goals. <br /> ...<br /> Of course I am not saying the French government believes in the racist crap the Orange Order stands for, just the stuff about one language for one country.[/QUOTE]<br /> I need to research the linguistic assimilation stuff by the French.

[lesouris]

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] Just to reply to a couple of other comments here, I don't think those numbers are quite correct in the numbers of Irish who speak Irish. It is an official language and when I spent time there a while ago I think there were more than 20,000 people in Dublin alone who spoke Irish. We had trouble in some of the suburbs where even fast food clerks couldn't speak english. I don't think we need fear that Irish is going anywhere. The other comment was that what the english did to the Irish was in the past, which I think could easily be debated, if anybody were so inclined (I'm not)[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> I'm sorry, I made a mistake in digits, there are 200 000 speakers of Irish in Ireland (out of a population of 5.6 million). Only 40 000 are first language speakers though. These numbers have to be interpretted though - most of these speakers are old, and unless something radical is done in Ireland, experts predict it will die out within two generations.<br /> <br /> To hear that people in the Dublin area are Irish-speaking is troubling for me. Dublin hasn't had a large Irish-speaking community in years, and what you describes suggests that Irish-speakers from the west have migrated to anglophone Dublin. These Irish speakers will probably be assimilated, and their children will probably not learn Irish as a language for daily use.<br /> <br /> The only thing I can see as saving the Irish language right now is the new way it is taught. Since independence, Irish children have been taught their language in a very counterproductive way. The standards of education has now been partially overhauled, and this process will probably continue.<br /> <br /> It must be cautioned however that the Irish government (especially just after independence) wanted to create the illusion of an Irish-speaking country so most political institutions are named ony in Irish (i.e. Ard-Fheiseanna, Taoiseach, Oireachtas, et cetera). Signs in public places were often erected in Irish, but that Irish was ungrammatical and made no real sense. No Taoiseach (Prime Minister) has been fluent in Irish for many decades, but on a more positive note, many politicians are now learning Irish (former President Mary Robinson, Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams, et cetera). Mary MacAleese (Máire Mhac Ghiolla Íosa in Irish), current President of Ireland, is fluent in the language. Also, it is now for the first time, mandatory that all legislation is passed in both Irish (the first official language) and English (the secondary language) since for decades legislation has been passed in English only. So there is hope for Irish, but there are worries too.

[Marcarc]

That's very interesting, I have no doubt that the same effects of globalization are effecting the Irish just as everywhere else. People leaving the rural areas to the urban ones. I think Ireland is more urban centralized than canada, but I could be wrong on that. There's no doubt that I saw much like you describe-a touristy 'look at our crazy language aren't we unique' kind of thing. But that uniqueness really seems to be stirring their pub scenes, where many young people spoke it. In Dublin it was primarily young people who spoke it, not old, which leads credence to your theory about rural youth migrating to the city. I don't know much about their education system, but there really did seem to be a real push for the language, it was always a hot topic in the newspapers, but that may be because the government was neglecting it and the people were mad about it. I think Ireland needs direct democracy as bad as we do, as I got into the issues I was amazed at how they mirrored our own.