Jump to content

Talk:Distinct society

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the phrase "...used in Quebec and Canada", Quebec is redundant because Quebec is a part of Canada. A naive reader may not recognize the redundancy and infer that Quebec is not a part of Canada, which is counterfactual. Leaving the article as it is impairs clarity by subtly sanctioning this implication. Therefore, the phrase has to be changed either to "...used in Canada" (my preference, since I believe saying something in as few words as possible is usually best for clarity) or something like "...used in Quebec and the rest of Canada". I'll let some other editor make the change, because I have already made the change once, and I do not participate in edit wars.--Indefatigable 14:28, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How does it look now? Adam Bishop 14:34, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, still redundant, but at least it now clears up the ambiguity in the very next sentence. It'll do. Thanks, Adam.--Indefatigable 20:04, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This page should reflect that the federal governement recongnized that Quebec is a nation within Canada which is a stronger statement on Quebec uniqueness than the term "distinct society" (nation as in people, not country). Lotheric 23:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get a reference saying it's a stronger term. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"One doesn't mean sovereignty. The other does — in the political sense of the word."[1] Since interpretation is up for debate, I'd argue that nation compared to distinct society is a stronger statement. Lotheric 00:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is far from a NPOV. It draws heavily from Hogg's own personal views. While he may be considered an expert in this area (many would disagree) his is hardly the representative view of constitutional experts. In order for this to have a NPOV either the weight of his bias needs to be reduced in this article or other expert opinions need to be introduced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.175.222 (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Origin

[edit]

In the Origin paragraph, there is a statement that might lead a reader to think that Quebec is Bilingual, which is not the case. While the Federal Government is, (or, more accurately, it offers all its services in French and English) the Province of Quebec is not. Quebec *ONLY* official language is French. In fact, New Brunswick is the only Province that is Bilingual using English and French. I will make changes reflecting this unless anyone wishes to discuss it..? Dphilp75 (talk) 19:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that section is referring to how English can be used in the National Assembly. 24.64.168.161 (talk) 04:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You could well be correct, but as written, it leaves the impression that Quebec is Bilingual, which simply isn't the case... Dphilp75 (talk) 17:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Hogg is a globalist Toadie from Osgoode Law. Along with other Fabians and Rhodes Scholars embedded in Canada, he deliberately LIES about the Constitution, so as to facilitate its dismantling and replacement with the fascist-communist EU model.

The SIMPLE, common-sense FACT is that Con-FEDERATION is the LEGAL EMBODIMENT and thus the FORMAL LEGAL RECOGNITION of ALL of the Provinces of Canada as DISTINCT, and culturally "separate". This was known back in 1867 when Canada was founded. The particular LEGAL RECOGNITION of French Canadians as "distinct" was first embodied in the Quebec Act of 1774, granted almost verbatim pursuant to the Petition of French Subjects of 1773.

The lunacy of the "distinct society" debate is that those behind it have ZERO ability to deduce reality from facts. Being intellectually awkward, if not backward; as well as corrupt in the case of the snake-oil men purveying this nonsense to the people in order to rile them up -- they would like, in effect, to paint a SIGN saying "skyscraper" and hang it on the Empire State Building, without which the IDIOTS wouldn't know what it is. The CONSTITUTION OF CANADA BEING FEDERAL IN NATURE is PROOF that ALL the Provinces, including Quebec, are each LEGALLY "DISTINCT", and that this was the WHOLE POINT of FEDERALISM, if you will read the 1865 Debates on Confederation.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1463942656711&set=a.1461926606311.41283.1777851356&type=3&theater

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1461926926319&set=a.1461926606311.41283.1777851356&type=3&theater — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.34.204 (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Distinct society. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Distinct_society&oldid=1201560924"