Humanities desk
< August 30	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	September 1 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 31

Quick onset of irreligiosity in Quebec

In Montreal, several years ago, my family visited a major cathedral. I can't recall which one it was, but I remember climbing a lot of steps to get to it. Our guide, a layman but obviously a fanatic, claimed that Quebec had experienced the most sudden onset of "secularisation" in the history of the hemisphere. He claimed that during the fifties, Quebec was "99% devout Catholic", but that the great majority had effectively abandoned the church by the early seventies. He stressed that the transformation was much more abrupt than in France, and that Quebec is today much less religious than France. I was inclined to doubt his commentary, but I've since seen a lot of evidence that France is more reactionary and clerical than Quebec. For instance, gay rights are far less advanced in France. So maybe the tour guide wasn't as deluded as I assumed. But why would this be the case? How did rustic provincials become more secular than metropolitan sophisticates? LANTZY ^TALK 00:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Secularization of France dates to at least the French Revolution, many Quebecois missed this as many had settled in North America prior to the Revolution. I have a book which is buried in a box in my crawlspace whose name and author I forget, but which was part of a French History class I took in college which laid out the causes and long-term historical effects of the secularization of (metropolitan) French society due to the French Revolution... --Jayron32 01:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "secularizaiton" of Quebec was part of the Quiet Revolution, although the Wikipedia article seems to focus on the political side of it rather than the social side. I'm not an expert on the subject, but it seems that in the 1960s, French Quebec went from a largely insular, conservative, Church-dominated, rural society content to leave business in the hands of the Montreal Anglos to a secular, leftist, nationalist society that sought economic power for itself. I'm not quite sure how this happened. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The real story seems to be how Quebec was held back, relative to Canada, the US, and Europe, until then. The Church seemed to maintain it's position of authority up until 1960, which resulted in the same corruption, economic stagnation, and low level of education that occurred in Europe back when the Church ruled supreme. Rapid reform then occurred, and it's not surprising that many people resented the Church and left it. StuRat (talk) 04:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, what you visited was probably Saint Joseph's Oratory, not a cathedral. Deor (talk) 11:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I only wish to point out that there isn't a clear relationship between the most popular religion of a given country and gay marriage. Gay marriage is legal in some countries which supposedly are more religious than others (e.g.: Spain, Portugal VS France, Germany). Gay marriage is even forbidden in several countries whose official propaganda decries the evils of religion (e.g.: China). So your (and you guide's) reasoning that France is more religious (and/or reactionary and clerical) than Canada and that that shows itself in the issue of gay marriage is mistaken. Flamarande (talk) 12:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but I did write "gay rights", not "same-sex marriage". France is way behind Quebec with respect to gay rights in general. France even seems to lag behind most other western European states in this regard. It's strange that so many right-leaning Americans conceive of France as the platonic ideal of permissive liberality, when in reality its political establishment (even on the left) is often quite committed to sexual traditionalism, the conventional family unit, etc. Forget Quebec. Maybe the question I ought to be asking is, "Why is France itself not more socially/sexually progressive?" LANTZY ^TALK 18:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lantzy, I don't know what you mean by referring to your guide as a fanatic. An enthusiastic secularist? A committed Catholic? It is true that Quebec society changed greatly over a very short period of time (the Quiet Revolution, as referred to above) and enormously over a relatively short period (say, WWII to the 1976 election of the nationalist Parti Quebecois). Women didn't get the vote in provincial elections until 1940, for example (Timeline of women's suffrage). The province had been known for its high birth rate, long after other areas had entered what Quebec historian Claude Bélanger calls a "modern demographic regime". Here is the concluding paragraph of his essay entitled "Birth Rate":

I suppose I used the word "fanatic" in its original sense of religious mania (L. fānum, temple). I should have qualified it. Don't get the wrong idea. He was a perfectly nice guy, more Ned Flanders than Rick Santorum, but he was creepily adamant about the literal reality of miracles and the efficacy of faith healing. I vividly remember him pointing to a huge collection of wooden crutches as "all the proof you need" that pilgrims to this place (Saint Joseph's Oratory, as Dior says) had been cured of their lameness. Crutches were mounted on the wall like snowshoes. Later he climbed a stone staircase on his knees. We were an ostensibly Catholic tour group, so I guess he was letting his hair down. If we'd been Japanese or Episcopalian, he would have probably confined himself to the architecture. LANTZY ^TALK 18:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The very sharp decline in the birth rate witnessed in Quebec in the 1960’s, throughout the Quiet Revolution, was thus a fast catching up to the behaviour that others had achieved more progressively previously. As traditional behaviour was abandoned throughout the Quiet Revolution in Quebec, the demographic comportment of Quebecers altered in a very rapid way. Between 1959 and 1971, Quebec moved from the position of having the highest birth rate in Canada to that of the lowest. This transformation was to have all kinds of effects on the status of women in Quebec, on the family, on education and the economic status of the population, on employment, on how Quebecers viewed their collective security given their diminishing proportion in Canada. It thus affected the language issue within Quebec and the rise of separatism. (© 1999 Claude Bélanger, Marianopolis College)

(My emphasis.) Obviously, this is linked (chicken and egg) to the decline in the power of the Catholic Church, which used to run the education and health systems, among other things. It is true that other social and political changes have occurred more abruptly in Quebec than in other parts of the superficially similar developed world. A Canadian political economist told me that, for instance, electoral swings in Quebec presaged those in the rest of the country, in a "canary in a coal mine" way. BrainyBabe (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

concept of double punishment for one and same cause of action

I love my India (Redacted), Advocate. As per Indian traditions, death sentence is beyond law limitations, but even then we have introduced death sentence in law of today. But when an accused is in jail for twenty years waiting final hanging, he has completed life imprisonment and hanging of such an accused means he is condemned to double punishment for one and the same cause of action and therefore, such people should be given freedom. (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.251.55 (talk) 03:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question? I'm afraid we can't give legal advice.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 03:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really a question for legal advice, in my opinion. It's not "this is my situation what should I do?" it's "I've noticed an inconsistency in law and I wonder how it came to be." The sentence is not to be hanged alone, and the imprisonment for 20 years is not a fixed term for legal purposes. In reality the sentence is something akin to the old British wording "to be taken from this court to the prison at [insert prison name] there to be held until he is conveyed to the place of execution where he is to be hung by the neck until dead." The sentence provides for the inmate being held in prison prior to their execution. HominidMachinae (talk) 04:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, how does 20 years constitute a "life sentence"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about India Bugs, but in England, the judge decides the "minimum term" before a prisoner is eligible for parole; in the case of a single murder, this is usually 15 years. Alansplodge (talk) 12:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if the guy is hanged, then his life is over, so in effect you have a life sentence for any amount of incarceration before the execution. Googlemeister (talk) 13:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. The thing is, the OP stated that 20 years equates to a "life sentence". I don't see how or why. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He means that if you murder someone and are sentanced to imprisonment for life, you can expect to be paroled after a minimum 14 years (if you play your cards right). Effectively that's the end of your life sentence, unless you breach the conditions of your parole. If however, a murderer serves 20 years (perhaps more than another man's life sentence) and then get hung, it seems to the OP that he is being punished twice. Is there a legal principle behind this? I don't know. Alansplodge (talk) 18:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above the legal principle involved is basically that you're not sentenced just to be hanged, you're sentenced to be confined and then hanged. Also, the period of incarceration is usually the result of mandatory automatic appeals and delays in the legal process, in that regard they're in the best interest of the convicted to suffer the period of incarceration because it allows them the chance to appeal. If they took you right from the court to execution there's no do-overs. HominidMachinae (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That seems (to me anyway) to answer the question. Alansplodge (talk) 23:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the OP makes a point: there is an injustice to being executed after 20 years incarceration. Allow me pose this question—would there be an injustice if a person was executed after 100 years incarceration? We would probably say yes. If so—what type of distinction are we making between the two amounts of incarceration? Bus stop (talk) 23:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The appeals allow for time to look for legal glitches (or even innocence). In the old days, they used to take them out after like a week and string them up. I wonder if the OP would prefer that approach. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the person who is immediately executed is getting a harsher punishment than the person who gets to live for 20 years first, regardless of the fact that those 20 years are spent in prison. 188.117.30.209 (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not in all cases. There are probably cases of suicides committed in prison that are a consequence of the incarceration itself. Bus stop (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how suicide could be considered a punishment. Googlemeister (talk) 18:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the point. BS is suggesting prison is so bad for some people they choose to commit suicide rather then either spend their rest of their lives or in some cases even likely only part of the rest of their lives in prison. This suggests that for some people, getting executed quickly would be preferable to being sentenced to spend 20 years in prison and to be executed after that. Nil Einne (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

United States Veto and Iraqi Economic Sanctions

Did the United States ever actually veto a plan to remove the economic sanctions against Iraq or did it just threaten to, so no such plan was ever introduced? --CGPGrey (talk) 10:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean in the US or the UN (such as UN Security Council)?Smallman12q (talk) 17:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Level results: ranking students

Ideally, I'd like some sort of graph or something where one could put in the grades and it would output how many people beat that/did worse – for example, if I entered AAA, then it might be 95% or something. (I don't know what the answers might be, hence the question!) I suppose this would be done via UCAS points (as a way of saying if CC or AF was better, for example), so that would be fine as well. Any recent year would be fine. Thanks, Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How's this: [1]? Unless I've misunderstood "tariff" means point score. 2.25.97.119 (talk) 11:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, thanks! Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you need planning permission to park a caravan on UK green belt land?

I was just reading the news about the Dale Farm travellers site evictions: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14715777 wherein it says "The travellers own the site at Dale Farm, but half of its pitches - 51 - do not have planning permission and have been deemed illegal." I know that all construction, including the construction of fences, can be banned on green belt land, but surely you're allowed to place a temporary structure, like a caravan? How about a tent, or a car? The article does say "pitches", though, so maybe that refers to some un-nomadic permanent structures like fences? I've read green belt and Dale Farm, but I still don't get it, except for where the latter article says vaguely that the travellers have "developed" the green belt part of the site. Card Zero (talk) 12:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they've built a lot of permanent structures like walls and stuff. Some of them may even have built houses. --Viennese Waltz 12:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just found http://www.advocacynet.org/resource/1300 which seems to say the council is aiming to remove "hard standing and fencing". I wonder whether most of the 50 or so travellers have caravans, in which they will leave when evicted and return after the surfaces and fences are broken up? Card Zero (talk) 12:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In certain areas at least, you need permission to keep your caravan on your own drive. (Might be conservation areas, I'm not sure.) The clear intention was at Dale Farm that this was always going to be permanent. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good lord. I guess there must be a legal definition of "caravan" somewhere, then. How petty. Card Zero (talk) 12:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here. I don't think it's petty &ndash it's when the caravan is being used as a house, and houses require permission for all sorts of reasons. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the problem is that the Dale Farm travellers are ignoring planning laws which clearly apply to them. That may sound petty. It is petty. But settled people have to abide by planning laws – and have action taken against them when they don't – so there's not much of an argument for turning a blind eye when travellers do it. --Viennese Waltz 12:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This photo shows the extent of the settlement that's supposed to be an agricultural field. Britain is a crowded little island; we need legal controls on who can build what and where, and everybody needs to play by the rules. "The fundamental aim of green belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open, and consequently the most important attribute of green belts is their openness." Some FAQs about Dale Farm here - from Basildon Council's point-of-view anyway. Alansplodge (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A "caravan" sounds like a procession of people on camels through the desert, but I guess it refers to what our side of the pond calls a trailer. In my US town there is no way I would be allowed to park a trailer, even a small travel trailer, in the street or in my yard, for very long. (I ran across an odd factoid: "Lee" is a common traveller name, and Robert E. Lee named his horse used during the American Civil War -- wait for it -- "Traveller". Hmmm.) Edison (talk) 04:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sucro, Spain

Where exactly is Sucro, Spain and why don't we have an article on this town?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[2] on the Spanish Wikipedia is a redirect to the Júcar river. My Spanish is non-existent but from the introductory paragraph it sounds like Sucre was the Roman name for this river. Not a town, then. --Viennese Waltz 12:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was a place known in pre-Roman times as Sucro, mentioned by a couple of Latin writers. This place may be the present-day Alzira. Marco polo (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading information on Scipio Africanus for around 206 BC just after the capture of New Carthage. Which place above sounds more logical where he may have left a garrison of troops? Perhaps Alzira is on the Júcar river, therefore making them one and the same at the Mediterranean Sea??--Doug Coldwell ^talk 17:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As our article on Alzira states, the town is located on the banks of the Júcar. It is not far (~20 km/12 miles/less than a day's march) from the coast, about 200 km (120 mi) north of Cartagena, and at what might be a strategic location commanding both a section of the coastal plain and a major route through the coastal mountains to the interior. Marco polo (talk) 18:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This book says that it was on the coast at the mouth of the Jucar (then the Sucro). (Or at least I'm 95% sure - it's in somewhat old-fashioned Spanish--from 1839--so maybe someone else should confirm.) So based on that description I'd guess near present-day Cullera. The book says the town existed at the time of Tiberius but no longer existed at the time of Vespasian. Another (1837) book says authorities don't know which modern town precisely it corresponds to, raising Cullera and Sueca as possibilities. This 1833 book says it's Cullera. This 1807 book devotes an entire chapter to where exactly Sucro is located - from my skimming it looks like it's an open question. But basically near Cullera. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, there is some controversy over the location of Sucro. According to this book, it was located at present-day Alzira (Alcira). This old book makes the same claim. It isn't clear that all scholars agree on the location of the pre-Roman town. Marco polo (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That all would make sense since Barcelona, just north of these cities on the same coast, sources say is a city that could have been named after the Carthaginian general Hamilcar Barca, who was supposed to have founded the city in the 3rd century BC (200s BC - the same time period I am reading on for Scipio Africanus). This stronghold of "Sucro" would then act as a buffer between "New Barca" (Barcelona) and New Carthage, which in 206 BC the Romans controlled because of Scipio.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 19:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Using Google Translate in Chapter 3 of the 1807 book it says:
(1) 'Charter of Cullera = May 16, 1892. = Mr. Director of the corespondent of Yalencia "Yesterday was kind enough = D. Piles Ibars Andres, historian of the town, moving my hands to an index of documents accumulated to date refer to Cullera, this is why I begged the man who made public his gratitude to the illustrious history of Don Juan Bautista Swedish Gra. But this should not be precluded, in the respect we deserve study, application and talent, set out the way we feel about not so great a height to reach the above efforts, sufficient to carry conviction. As proposed by Mr. Piles, that is, Cullera is the successor to Sucre, even to those less versed in matters of this nature, despite the profusion of arguments and gives plenty of quotes and quotations more or less stringent legal and accommodative that accumulates in the cited work, attributing his adoptive population succession of ancient Roman villa.

It appears to me that Cullera is the successor to Sucre; and in any case Sueca, Sucre, Cullera and Alzira are all very close to each other.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 20:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

celebration of Eid ul-Fitr 2011

Which countries celebrated Eid on August 30 and which on August 31 (today) ? --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a rather comprehensive listing at the bottom of this page. First, a lot of people consider Eid ul-Fitr to be a three-day holiday, which would mean it does not end tonight regardless of when it started. Second, more countries began celebrating yesterday (although, yes, I understand Indonesia and South Asia's choice of today means more Muslims celebrated the holiday today). tariqabjotu 18:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tariq; that's useful information. --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addresses of Aérospatiale and BAC

What were the street/physical addresses of the head offices of Aérospatiale and British Aircraft Corporation? I want to know where their head offices were located. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They were at 37 boulevard de Montmorency, Paris and 100 Pall Mall, London respectively.--Cam (talk) 01:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I am sourcing and adding the info! WhisperToMe (talk) 02:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]