ElPistolero wrote:N867DA wrote:ElPistolero wrote:
The First Nations reserves are the best example. One need only look at the travails of the trans-Canada pipeline to see how entrenched these rights are.
You see similar things with Quebec; while there's no prohibition on movement/ property buying per se, the language laws are very restrictive and act as a de facto barrier. It also runs its own immigration program, has its own laws (civil matters are Judged according to French-heritage civil law), has its own flag, and has its own "mini-embassies" abroad. Canadians from outside Quebec have to pay higher university tuition than foreign students from francophone nations. The country also has to officially function in two language, despite the fact that only around 20% of the country is francophone.
The kind of stuff that would make them easy targets for the type of angry majoritarians we see in India.
Honestly, if Kashmir had the same basic policy as Quebec that'd be fine by me. Quebec's immigration laws only apply to immigration from outside Canada, correct? They can't prevent someone from Vancouver or Edmonton from moving there and buying a house? There's really nothing wrong with having a Kashmiri mini-embassy in other countries to serve as an ambassador for the state--in fact, it's a good idea.
Language and religion are not the same (bilingualism is a thing, but not bi-theism) so the analogy falls apart quickly. The geopolitical realities facing Quebec and Kashmir are also pretty different. But it's not a bad start.
Edit to add: Things are obviously not fine in Kashmir. They weren't fine last week, last month, last year, or frankly any time in the lifetimes of many posters here. The tension just waxes and wanes. The hope is that these next few weeks are the nadir.
I'm not sure I agree. Québécois culture is more akin to a religious culture than just a linguistic culture (a la, say, Punjabi). Just witness their RSS-style secularism - they're trying to ban religious symbols (turbans etc) in government workplaces, but insist on keeping the Christian cross in the provincial legislature. But anyway, probably splitting hairs at this point.
Which is to say, yes, you can move, but the barriers to movement are formidable. And deliberately so - they're designed to preserve the unique cultural identity of Quebec. The language laws are pretty heavy; witness Montreal's relative decline as an economic hub since their implementation. That's in large part because language barriers stop a lot of companies and talent from going there.
That aside, they're both examples of rights given to minority-majority (?) states/provinces with strong national identities. The civil law/common law combination is unique to Quebec. And the mini-embassy thing was just a reminder that some of these grievances against flags and whatnots are trivial.
Frankly I think Nagaland is a much better comparator. Luckily for them, they're majority Christian. For now, anyway.
Quebec's always fascinated me because how different they try to be. Even the stop signs in Paris say Stop, but QC must do its own thing. Companies like BMO fled Montreal because of violence and separatism in the 1960s and 1970s. Now it's too late to unring the bell. The first referendum was the final nail in the coffin. And the second one, which the Premier of Quebec himself says was lost due to the money and the ethnic vote, pretty much confirmed everyone's decision to stay in Toronto.
There's really no good comparison, just kind of close ones. We'll see how Kashmir's story unfolds. There's definitely room for a Quebec-like arrangement in my mind. If in two generations Kashmir can be stabilized the way Quebec fits in Canada today, then so be it.