AngryFrenchGuy

Canadian Nationalists Fear the .QC domain

with 17 comments

Pathologically insecure Canadian nationalists are denouncing the idea proposed by Parti québécois MNA Daniel Turp that a .qc domain be created.

Presently Québec-based websites can use a .qc.ca domain or the generic .com, .org, etc…

There are precedents for non-independent country domain names. .cat has been available to the people of Catalunya since 2005 and the danish territory of Greenland has it’s own .gl domain.

After making sure every single product in Canada is called Canadian something and that all the McDonald’s, Sears and Wal-Marts in the land had a canadian maple leaf on their logos, Canadian patriots now want to make sure all Québec websites are properly labelled as Canadian products.

Maybe they are concerned the Canadian federation will crumble to pieces if Québec individuals and companies were allowed to post websites on the internet without the .ca in front of the .qc reminding the world that, yes, Québec is still part of Canada.

This is probably the same people who thought that the solution the near breakup of the country in 1980 and 1995 was to plaster the province with canadian flags. The same people who forced SRC to backtrack and change it’s name back to Radio-Canada, despite the fact that CBC could keep its call letters and the minor detail that Radio-Canada was a TELEVISION station.

Jeez, if Canadian unity hangs by such a weak thread maybe we should go further. Maybe we should make it illegal for websites like mine use a generic .com and force me to use a .qc.ca. Or a .ca, period.

How about all Canadian websites be forced to use a .canadakicksass domain and post links to Molson and Tim Horton’s?

We could also force Quebecers to put that little Canadian flag on their licence plates that you see in the West Island and make the canadian flag mandatory on backpacks.

Let’s not stop there! Let’s force canadians to use .ca.uk until they get the balls to show the door to the Queen!

Advertisements

Written by angryfrenchguy

April 18, 2008 at 4:02 pm

17 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. OK, this is the kind of issue that makes me want to jump out of an airplane. Or emigrate. The fact that anybody, on either side, can care about this — esp. to the point of vitriol — is proof positive that the only solution to this sort of thing is psychoanalysis.

    Love that little dig about the Queen . . . shows how much you know about the ROC, AFG. We’d certainly have changed the head of state years ago if we could ever agree on anything at all. But, of course, we can’t. Francophone Quebeckers tend to imagine the ROC as some monolithic entity, whereas in fact it’s way more heterogeneous than you know. It’s like France minus Paris. This isn’t just a quibble, either: it’s why QC nationalists (.qc nationalists?) see the country in starkly binary terms, whereas the ROC knows it’s incredibly fractious . . . but that way meech-madness lies . . .

    hoo-boy

    April 18, 2008 at 4:51 pm

  2. Let’s do a little science-fiction, and let’s see if these things are indicative of something much bigger: Let’s say that, because of NAFTA, Americans required a simple “uniformization policy” of products in all concerned lands.

    That would mean that all Canadian websites would have to be named .us or .ca.us.

    That would entail that, each time a Canadian company is having part of its production been made elsewhere, or has investment from elsewhere, the American Stars and Stripes flag must be shown (à la AdScam post-referendum era).

    That would mean that, when a NAFTA-skeptic party was in power, the American government would secretly, and openly, scheme to block contact with the governments of the outside world (à la Ottawa scheming to have Mexican president Vincente Fox withdraw the invitation to his inauguration he made Bouchard).

    That would lead to things like Washington forbiding the NAFTA-skeptic Canadian Prime Minister to participate – or even address the guests! – at an international summit held in Canada’s national capital! (à la Landry being forbidden from even addressing the people at the Summit of the Americas held in… Quebec City).

    That would mean that, when a vote on major adjustments on the deal, the American government, its elite and businessmen would conspire to violate Canadian laws, have Americans vote illegaly in Canada, double immigration to Canada from people likely to be pro-NAFTA, have the biggest American companies pay for transport for an invasion of Americans at a phony Love-In, buy out most billboards and have a secret organization give millions to the pro-NAFTA side.

    How would that feel then?

    But I understand. That’s right. It has not-a-thing to do with this. With the US, it would clearly be jingoistic, contemptuous “imperialism” because… the US has not conquered Canada and Canada isn’t an internal part of the US.

    While in Quebec’s case, it’s NOT “imperialism”, it’s not an Empire because… because Quebec has been conquered and is an internal part of Canada. …Wait…

    So, how would that feel?

    Liberlogos

    April 19, 2008 at 1:26 am

  3. If Hoo-Boy wants to emigrate from Canada, he can always move to .qc.

    April 19, 2008 at 11:44 am

  4. […] latest local blog profile is Angry French Guy (Somewhat ironic since his latest post totally disses me. The profile was written weeks ago and has been sitting in the can while this […]

  5. Ok. Well, since it is true (not denying it) that the Québecois are just as much a people as the Catalans, why not press for a three letter domain for anything in or related to Québec and its culture? Would “.quc” or “.que” or “.qeb” be better? Or since there’s the four letter “.info” out there (Montreal’s public transit authority recently became “stm.info” instead of “stm.qc.ca”…yet the AMT is still “amt.qc.ca”, despite being a Québec government organization, go figure)…why not “.queb” or “.qubc” or “.quec”? Problem with two-letter domains is they are intended for countries. Because Greenland (.gl) and American Samoa (.as), for example, are considered seperate entities, and far more autonomous in regards to the “mother country” than Canada’s provinces or the US states, they are entitled to them. But a three or four letter domain for Québec is a must.

    As for showing the Queen the door…my response may sound a bit different, so bear with me. I support her as queen of CANADA…but just that. She isn’t “Queen of Québec.” Why, why, WHY should, say, Québec MNAs have to pledge loyalty to her? The only ones they should owe loyalty to…are the people. I think we should have “provincial heads of state”….provinces that are monarchist can keep a “governor” for the Queen…but if the Québecois want a “Président du Québec”…well…”plus de puissance a ils!” (I know, literal translations of expressions are sometimes funny!)

    Ra'akone

    April 19, 2008 at 4:20 pm

  6. i am sure you have your reasons, but this is wether québec deserves its own .qc tld. It’s not a country, or an agency of the united nations. the .cat and .gl for catalonia or groenland doesn’t make sense in m opinion.

    what next? can we have .mtl for websites in Montréal? and .outremont for websites in the Outremont neighborhood?

    heri

    April 19, 2008 at 6:19 pm

  7. Hoo boy:

    Regarding the Queen and the monarchy in general…

    Sure it has no relevance in everyday life in the ROC but just try and start a movement to abolish it and see what happens. Australians tried to get rid of the monarchy a few years ago and pretty much everyone expected the referendum on becoming a republic to pass like a knife through butter, but to everyone’s amazement the proposal was defeated and the monarchy was retained. This was in Australia, where if you know the place there is actually much overt hostility towards Britain and England in particular.

    In Canada, in spite of the apparent contradiction with the image of modern Canada, a lot of people would be wary of getting rid of the monarchy, if only because many people are often desperate for symbolic stuff that distinguishes them from the U.S.

    Predicted results for a referendum on abolishing the monarchy in Canada:

    Quebec: 90% No / 10% Yes
    ROC: 45% Yes / 55% Yes

    Now wouldn’t that make for an interesting “morning after”?

    Acajack

    April 19, 2008 at 9:40 pm

  8. Sorry, I meant my predicted results in the ROC would be 45% for abolishing the monarchy and 55% for keeping it.

    Acajack

    April 19, 2008 at 9:48 pm

  9. On several occasions recently, I’ve found myself arguing that the PQ’s apparant plan to promote Quebec’s autonomy within Canada wouldn’t succeed in provoking federalists because, in the end the federalists would realize that any attempt to gain more autonomy wouldn’t in any way be a threat to Canada.

    I was told, by those I was arguing with, that I was giving the federalists too much credit, that they would oppose anything that seeked to distinguish Quebec from Canada, however non-threatening it really was.

    It looks like I’m losing that argument. Domain names? really? That almost makes the size of lettering on commercial signage seem like a worthwhile cause.

    Rorybellows

    April 19, 2008 at 10:23 pm

  10. Acajack — Don’t get me wrong, I’m a monarchist. The idea of MP’s or MLA’s or Town Councillors pledging their loyalty to “the people” is profoundly frightening to me. Because it’s easy to make “the people” do whatever you want — cf. the USA, where the President nominally represents the people but in fact represents himself. The advantage of pledging one’s loyalty to the Crown (not necessarily to the British monarch) is that nobody starts mistaking themselves for God, à la Bush. The Australians defeated the republic idea for that very reason. But then the nationalists on this blog remind me of the Republicans (capital-R) in so many ways, maybe they’d prefer tyranny.

    hoo-boy

    April 20, 2008 at 8:19 pm

  11. The how-divisible is divisible question appears here again, of course, in microscopic form. In an independent Quebec, would the Cree get “.iw” (for “Iliniw”)? Um, well . . .

    hoo-boy

    April 20, 2008 at 8:22 pm

  12. This won`t surprise anyone, but I am not a monarchist AT ALL. As Winston Churchill, one of the British Crown`s loyal subjects to boot!, said so well, democracy is the worst form of government… except for all the others.

    For all of humanity`s faults and historical errors, I trust the people far more than I`d trust some king or queen who has power based on what? Lineage? Sorry, man. I’ll take my chances with the people any day.

    Of course, democracy is an imperfect system since it was devised by the imperfect creature that is the homo sapiens. None of democracy`s supporters have any illusions about it being perfect, but to bring forward George W. Bush’s presidency as an example of the failure of republicanism (small r in this case) is a bit unfair. And although I abhor the guy and think he has done great damage to his country and much of the world, he`s hardly a tyrant. Actually, he ain`t smart enough to be a tyrant…

    Monarchists like to say that the Crown is a good ‘check and balance`, but what happens if we get a rogue monarch instead of a rogue president? Then what? Well, the monarchists usually answer no worries, Parliament would just abolish the monarchy or censure the monarch to rein him in.

    OK, but so what`s the use of a monarchy if Parliament is still the supreme level of power?

    Tourism?

    Acajack

    April 20, 2008 at 9:23 pm

  13. Rorybellows:

    I’ve heard it suggested before that Bill 101 should be put in the Constitution (the Canadian one… actually the only one).

    The problem is that with every constitutional failure, the stakes get higher. I’m not sure that the majority of rabble-rousers in Quebec would today be satisfied with just Bill 101 in the Constitution. They might have been placated by such a move 10 or 15 years ago, but today it wouldn’t be perceived as nearly enough. (Especially given all the publicity recently over the law’s alleged ineffectiveness.)

    When the Meech crisis was on, I told everyone I knew: they’d better pass Meech if they know what’s good for them, because next-time-round there’s going to be a lot more than a flimsy distinct society clause on the table. Meech died largely because labelling Quebec a distinct society (and giving it a handful of new powers) was too much for the ROC to swallow, and where are we now? Yippee, we’re now calling Quebec a ‘nation’, which by any dictionary’s measure is dangerously close to calling it a country. And we’re also (sooner than people think) eventually going to be debating, together as Canadians, what this nation status for Quebec actually means with respect to the division of powers between Ottawa and Quebec City. Sounds like fun, doesn’t it?

    Does anyone miss distinct society now?

    Acajack

    April 20, 2008 at 9:38 pm

  14. @hoo-boy

    Great idea! Sure, a Cree domain, no problem. A good idea; justice and respect for everyone! When one believes in justice, one holds it *above* their own interests, something more people in majority and/or powerful groups should understand if we want to progress in this world (like in Canada, France, China, Spain, Britain; and with males, white people, straight people…).

    By the way, there are domains for non-sovereign entities like Catalonia, (.cat), Greenland (.gl), the American Samoa (.as), even Asia (.asia). And there are movements to establish domains for Britanny (.bzh), Wales (.cym), Galicia (.gal), Scotland (.sco), Latin America and its diaspora (.lat), New York City (.nyc) and Berlin (.berlin)!

    @Acajack

    Yup. Reminds me of a quote of a British politician during the Irish independence struggle of the beginning of the 20th century, who in other words said “If only we had agreed to Home Rule”.

    liberlogos

    April 20, 2008 at 11:49 pm

  15. Re a Cree domain, an Inuktitut domain…

    I’m all for that as well.

    I’m an ardent defender of cultural diversity, rather than a French supremacist (as some might suspect). That’s why French trumps (if I can use the term) English for me pretty much anywhere in North America, but Huron trumps French in my book in Wendake for example, which is a Quebec City suburb populated by Hurons. If they want all their signs to be in Huron and restrict the use of French in their community – go for it. I won’t feel slighted just because my language, with which I do identify strongly, is French, and even though French has been spoken in the Quebec City area for 400 years. I can deal with French being curtailed for the benefit of Huron (or another aboriginal language elsewhere) because I know that, in the long run, RDS will still be in French, Le Soleil will still be in French, Université Laval will still be producing graduates in French, etc. And that the hill Huron has to climb is pretty darn steep.

    That’s why I just don’t get the attitude of certain anglos with respect to the protection of French on a larger scale in Quebec. The power of English on this continent (even in Quebec) and in the world is just so massive, that their hostility can only be explained by the fact that some people just can’t stand the idea that there is still one small corner of the continent where it isn’t (yet) dominant. It really can’t be anything else, unfortunately.

    Acajack

    April 21, 2008 at 8:32 am

  16. I’m catalan and I’m really pleased with the .cat domain. Most of the catalans companies and institutions have never used the .es domain, but as soon as the .cat was available, everybody wanted to get its .cat domain immediately.
    I feel sorry about people being upset with this reality but this is the way it is. Some countries are not 100% definitive, and when 2 nationalism are cohabiting in the same country, in the end the independency of both should become a reality.
    I know history about Quebec and Catalonia are very different, but there are also some common points, that’s why I really hope in the end you will get the .qc domain.
    Good luck!

    Skweez

    May 4, 2008 at 5:23 pm

  17. many arguments against are just blabla you don’t know what to say

    Éric Roy

    February 22, 2014 at 8:59 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: