The comparison isn’t so simple. Canada has two official languages, one of which is French. Quebec’s sovereignty has always been about preserving French as the One True Language against the enemy English. It’s not a coincidence that anglo areas are almost unanimously federalist while francophone areas are at best about 60% sovereignist.
Jean Naimard
Quebec’s sovereignty has always been about preserving French as the One True Language against the enemy English.
It is only one part of the idea behind sovereignty, the main one being that one nation CANNOT live under the boot/yoke/stare of another. Language is only the most visible (audible?) part of the debate, but there is no “one true language” (like you so cluelessly try to imply here — if there were, language laws would have been far more radical than they are). There are a myriad other points, like our distrust of private entreprise (we have been shafted so many times by merchants and industrialists, much more than by governments), the fact that we don’t absolutely worship individual responsibility (SAAQ no-fault insurance) and we have a more collectivist vision of society, things that evolved from the socio-politico-historicalo-geographic conditions seen in France, which are totally different from those in Britain, hence the very different natures of our respective national characters which cannot be made to coexist in the same political space.
1. We have the SAAQ and consumer protection laws and all that other stuff. What policy does federalism prevent us from having?
2. I never heard any of this mentioned during Guy A. Lepage’s separatism sell. Just “Quebec is a nation” repeated over and over, with the statement that even though it accepts all cultures, the only language is French.
Vahan
“Hey what’s up” Jay St.Louis with the baseball cap titled to the side. It is great that you are keeping it pure and francophone all the way my man. The anglo North American culture is in no way infiltrating into your everyday hip-hop lifestyle my cool brother. Look at you being all progressive and liberal with and black anglo woman. Yes you have overcome years of oppression by the anglo man and have defiantly moved on, only to wrap yourself in someone else’s culture. Go ahead walk around like a hip-hop gangsta yelling yoo yoo yoo man all day long. Keep that gene pool shallow my friend. It is funny how the shrill Celine only began making money when she began singhing in hinglish and Simple Plan they dooes the singhing in hinglish halso. They know how to butter their bread. You are probably one of those aholes that drive around your souped up Hondas on St Cath with the deep heavy bass anglo music, tinted windows down, one arm stretched out on the steering wheel the other holding you up while you are “coolly” hunched over to the right side pretending you are driving a manual shift.
Kinda hard to lighten up when you are constantly asked how many wives you have, told to go back to your country and being a maudite ethnie. So you tell them in French that you are born in Montreal, probably lived longer then they have in this city and that they should enlighten themselves with the rest of the world and that even though you may not practice the Catholic religion, or any religion for that matter that 1 wife is enough to handle. But you know the PQ has a good hold on stupidity of the uneducated much like the Republicans in the U.S.
I may not agree with Quebec sovereignty, but never would I make so absurd a generalization as to say that all its supporters are stupid.
Charles
It’s not quite that simple. I’m an anglo separatist too. Part of it undoubtedly has to do with the fact that I’m from Louisiana, and have seen what happens to French when it gets swallowed up, but mainly it has to do with the fact that I feel Québec as a political entity deserves the chance to exercise itself on the international stage, that I resent the endless condescension from the rest of Canada, and the fact that I feel Canada in and of itself has become rather dysfunctional as a country (see the paralyzing fear of amending the constitution and “stirring up the natives”). To me, it seems self-evident that without the viable threat of separation, francophones in Canada wouldn’t have any of the rights they now enjoy (French probably wouldn’t even be an official language at the federal level). Just weeks after the PQ was reduced to third place in 2007, New Brunswick eagerly eliminated early French immersion in its schools.
Also, areas like the Saguenay voted close to 75% for sovereignty in 1995.
You may think I’m naïve, but as an anglophone, an immigrant, and an American, I for one feel very comfortable with the Québec “national project.” My wife, a Palestinian immigrant who doesn’t even speak French, feels much the same way — in fact, she often laments that the language laws are as lax as they are, allowing her to coast along without being forced to learn French. Go figure.
“Just weeks after the PQ was reduced to third place in 2007, New Brunswick eagerly eliminated early French immersion in its schools.”
I don’t think those two are related. In any case, New Brunswick’s move received wide condemnation from anglophone New Brunswick parents.
Vahan
Charles your wife wants the government to “force” her to learn French and that is why we need to go through this upheaval? If your wife has not learned French that is her own doing. Look, in the U.S they have English as the only official language. No one is forcing anyone to learn Spanish, but you know what, the smart ones are reading the tea leaves and realize they need to know Spanish to click with the growing population. No coercion, no gun to the head or knife to ones own throat. Stop blaming government for your lackadaisical approach to learning. All the opportunities are there for you and your wife to get educated and as a Quebec resident education is dirt cheap. So coast back into a school and learn. Don’t break up my country, over a simple thing as language.
Jean Naimard
1. We have the SAAQ and consumer protection laws and all that other stuff. What policy does federalism prevent us from having?
Plenty, like direct taxation at manufacturers rather than excise taxes (this costs us billions per year as we cannot collect tobacco taxes directly from the manufacturers, so they export it to the US and they are smuggled back in). Or having prices posted on stuff in private retail stores that include taxes; having to separately calculate the taxes is a royal pain in the butt. A legal system that cannot be challenged by monied interests (supreme court of Canada, I fart in your general direction).
There are many philosophical differences between our respectives views on society that will never be able to be reconciled at the general satisfaction of everyone involved here, so the best way for everyone is the separate way.
2. I never heard any of this mentioned during Guy A. Lepage’s separatism sell. Just “Quebec is a nation” repeated over and over, with the statement that even though it accepts all cultures, the only language is French.
Canada, too is puportedly a “nation”. Which also accepts all cultures, but the only language is english.
Kinda hard to lighten up when you are constantly asked how many wives you have,
(This must be asked with a tinge of envy). You oughta snappily answer back something like “how many assholes do you have?”…
To me, it seems self-evident that without the viable threat of separation, francophones in Canada wouldn’t have any of the rights they now enjoy (French probably wouldn’t even be an official language at the federal level). Just weeks after the PQ was reduced to third place in 2007, New Brunswick eagerly eliminated early French immersion in its schools.
¿ DUH ? Well, of course! The threat of separation is a nifty gun over the redcoats’ head. The redcoats only understand when they have a knife on their throat. (You’re not english, but american – americans, too, fought the redcoats and separated, so this explains why you are “separatist”).
Canada has always refused to have strict reciprocity agreements with Québec with regards on how the french outside of Québec are treated, because they could not tolerate having to treat the french as well as we treat the english anymore than they could stomach having the english treated here like they treat the french.
You may think I’m naïve, but as an anglophone, an immigrant, and an American, I for one feel very comfortable with the Québec “national project.” My wife, a Palestinian immigrant who doesn’t even speak French, feels much the same way — in fact, she often laments that the language laws are as lax as they are, allowing her to coast along without being forced to learn French. Go figure.
That’s because we, the french, are very tolerant. Anglo-saxons* would never have tolerated anyone to do what they did to us – witness how the yankees booted the redcoats 240 years ago.
* Generic french (from France) political science term that designates both the americans and the british.
“Canada, too is puportedly a “nation”. Which also accepts all cultures, but the only language is english.”
You’re reversing the argument here. Canada is a bilingual country that wants to stay bilingual (despite what some Albertans may think). Quebec is a bilingual province that wants to have one language.
Actually, just for the record Vahan, the U.S. doesn’t have an official language.
Charles
If you had read my comment carefully, you would see that the first part is me explaining why I support sovereignty. The second part is merely a commentary on my part that Quebec’s attitude toward English is actually accepting enough to enable someone to be selected to immigrate, to live, and to work here without learning French at all (though not in the highest-paying jobs, naturally). I spoke French before I arrived in Québec, and I would still be pro-sovereignty if Québec were officially bilingual.
The United States has no official language, despite the best efforts of the far-right to impose one. Puerto Rico, New Mexico, Louisiana, and Hawaii are bilingual at the territorial/state level (the latter two in French and Hawaiian).
I find it highly amusing that the position of some of the federalist forces in Québec seems to be that immigrants are fine as long as they’re on the “right side” (at which point nationalist xenophobia is something to be condemned), but once we support sovereignty, then it’s back to being “your country” (and yours alone) and it’s no longer all right for us to participate in the political process. Hmmmmm. Would that make us “the ethnic vote”?
Marc
The one and only success I’ve had ordering a meal in a restaurant in French west of Ottawa was in Victoria where our server happened to be a transplant from Quebec City. You’d also have no problem doing such a thing in Welland which is 26% French. Therefore, I have no belief in this “Canada is a bilingual country” nonsense. As for New Brunswick, it is bilingual on paper only. A cousin of mine lives in NB and service in French isn’t exactly easy to come by.
Jean Naimard
I’m anglophone and I’m separatist.
And, of course, anonymous.
Well, ¿DUH? of course he is! I can’t really blame him, given how they are stigmatized!!!
I find it highly amusing that the position of some of the federalist forces in Québec seems to be that immigrants are fine as long as they’re on the “right side” (at which point nationalist xenophobia is something to be condemned), but once we support sovereignty, then it’s back to being “your country” (and yours alone) and it’s no longer all right for us to participate in the political process. Hmmmmm. Would that make us “the ethnic vote”?
Indeed, you pinpointed it exactly. Parizeau put the finger on the problem right away, and this is why there were so many howls: he was right from the onset. The “earlier” immigrants who were anglicized by the federal government (greeks, italians, filipinos) are overwhelmingly against the french, because they were told that they had to learn english if they wanted a job here. And when they came here, indeed, they saw that the french were treated like the blacks are in the US, and they certainly didn’t want to become more “white niggers of America”. (As for the filipinos, it’s slightly different. They come here, expecting to go live in the US in the next few months [they seldom do, americans are extremely racist and do not want filipinos]. In the meanwhile, they get trapped in their little communities ran by big-shots who, of course, are liberals and thus tell them about the evil separatists).
Newer immigrants who grativated towards the french either thanks to law 101 or simply because culturally they were closer to the french (earlier vietnamese, armenians, south-americans, arabs), on the other hand, are much more likely to side with the french. Those who don’t do it for the usual money reasons. Remember that Parizeau said “money and some ethnic votes”.
The french-from-France are a different league; those who come here to make money will side with the federalists (they’re the “taxes is theft” crowd), thinking that Canada is just like the Europan Union (no it’s not; it was a business decision, taken when the incompetent family compact clearly saw it could not compete against the yankees, it forced confederation upon us — when the proposed referendum for Québec to join Confederation was clearly going to go bust, despite that only landowners then could vote and that our très sainte merde l’église scatholique romaine threatened excomunication to everyone who would vote against* [back then, voting was not secret], McDonald and Cartier cancelled it and replaced it by a legislature vote which only passed by 1 vote) and those who just come for the adventure are at first befuddled, but once they encounter the english hardassness towards the french will really see what things are and will side with us.
While we’re sinking into politically incorectness, let’s talk about the jews, too. 50 years ago, the jews had no problem serving people in french in their little shops; they saw that they were discriminated against just like the french were (this was when Mc-Gill had strict jewish quotas, and the WASP establishment was firmly closed). Then when the anti-jew discrimination diminished after the war, they got more influence, and firmly sided with the side of big money, the english, which is why jews vehemently oppose sovereignty, because they know very well that a more socialist country would tax them much more.
* The scatholic church was promised by the english total control over education of the french, insuring they could brainwash them into giving them lots of money — the sumptuousness of the churches is a good illustration of this State-sanctionned racket.
Remember that Parizeau said “money and some ethnic votes”.
He said “l’argent et des votes ethniques”. Which translates more properly as “money and ethnic votes”.
Anish
“They come here, expecting to go live in the US in the next few months [they seldom do, americans are extremely racist and do not want filipinos]”
This is simply ridiculous. While I am in many ways sympathetic to the sovereignist philosophy, I am an American of Asian Indian descent. I have never experienced anything CLOSE to the racism I did in Quebec, even in Texas, Georgia or Tennessee. Stop being stupid and saying “Americans are extremely racist” when you are part of a movement (again, NO problem with the philosophy, just the backwards racists who people the movement) that REGULARLY uses tests of “pure laine” or “Quebecois de souche (my ass, you guys were imperialists in your own right for much of your history, own up to it) to equate with being Quebecois.
Stop denigrating a country that is VASTLY more diverse and accepting of immigrants as RACIST before you get your own house in order. When there comes a day I can walk down the streets in tough parts of Quebec City with my color skin and see a group of nationalist white boys with shaved heads and feel SAFE, then start throwing stones at glass houses…
And don’t pull the language shit on me…I speak fluent Quebecois French with a STRONG accent, so strong that in France I occasionally struggled accent-wise
Jean Naimard
> "They come here, expecting to go live in the US in the next few months
> [they seldom do, americans are extremely racist and do not want filipinos]"
This is simply ridiculous. While I am in many ways sympathetic to the sovereignist philosophy, I am an American of Asian Indian descent.
I just watched Peter Sellers in “The Party” (other article) and your statement could only bring back that fond memory… Sorry, could not resist.
I have never experienced anything CLOSE to the racism I did in Quebec, even in Texas, Georgia or Tennessee.
Oh yeah? How about the US immigration laws that automatically assume that everyone who shows at the doorstep wants to immigrate illegally? The way it works (no 4th amendment protection at the border), you essentially have to **PROVE** that you don’t intend to break the law when you show up.
White people from Canada are not very often annoyed at the border, but how about people who are not white and not from Canada?
Stop being stupid and saying "Americans are extremely racist" when you are part of a movement (again, NO problem with the philosophy, just the backwards racists who people the movement) that REGULARLY uses tests of "pure laine" or "Quebecois de souche
Ouate de phoque? Who tests for “soucheness”??? Raymond Villeneuve???
(my ass, you guys were imperialists in your own right for much of your history, own up to it) to equate with being Quebecois.
Unlike Britain, France’s very survival did not depend on the plundering of the natural ressources that have been long depleted in Britain. France had a colonial empire only because it was fashionable at a time, so it only pursued it half-assedly. The only time when it was pursued more studiously was when the bourgeois had manged to subvert France during the industrial revolution. But again, France was hardly dependent on it’s empire so it still pursued it half-assedly (compared to the red coats). Best proof of it is that after world war II, when both France and Britain had their empires stripped for them, Britain was completely broke, destitute and bankrupt that it had to impose strict exchange controls for more than 20 years after the war, whereas France saw more than 30 solid continuous years of constant, unprecedented economic growth. Like is it’s empire actually stunted it’s Economy.
So, no, we, the french were globally much better imperialists than the red coats.
Stop denigrating a country that is VASTLY more diverse and accepting of immigrants as RACIST before you get your own house in order.
It’s very easy to look “more diverse” when you’re more than 40 times bigger.
When there comes a day I can walk down the streets in tough parts of Quebec City with my color skin and see a group of nationalist white boys with shaved heads and feel SAFE, then start throwing stones at glass houses…
There are no “though parts” in Québec. They are all equally limp and listen to garbage radio.
Besides that, I’d like to know where you get your shit, because it’s reall good stuff.
And don’t pull the language shit on me…I speak fluent Quebecois French with a STRONG accent, so strong that in France I occasionally struggled accent-wise
Being from Hawaii, I can assure you that any bilingualism there is as much a feel-good joke as Canadian bilingualism is in Vancouver. Hawaiian serves as a decorative language, used for some signage on government buildings and some non-threatening chants given at ceremonies here and there. I have yet to see any official state documents in Hawaiian, and I doubt you could defend yourself in court in Hawaiian. There are classes and groups dedicated to learning it, but it won’t have any power of attraction and nothing economically important will go on in Hawaiian.
Louisiana is used as the example for what Québec could become. The economic center of Louisiana became hollowed out of any status-attached French and it, too, became decorative and non-threatening (Regis can come down to NOLA and chow down on “baynays”) save for outlying, impoverished country bumpkins whose “French” is probably incomprehensible to anyone else, and virtually useless there.
I’m probably painting, as usual, in broad strokes, but the exceptions or details don’t do much to change the picture here.
Ardently anti-sovereignty anglo-Montréalers apparently don’t believe these processes — cultural decimation — are real or that they could ever happen here because Canada is “bilingual” — even though French is in statistical decline and its French features, wherever they’re not being actively fought for, are being curtailed (like immersion in NB).
Case in point: nobody talks to me in French in Montréal except people paid to do so, customers at my work, or my hispanic girlfriend! How am I supposed to learn? How am I supposed to believe French isn’t threatened here?
Finally, condemning us (anglo, pro-sovereignty immigrants) to adopt the federalist line or shut up is purely and simply an attack on the political rights of immigrants and we shouldn’t tolerate it.
I plan to volunteer for the Bloc at the next election. In Papineau perhaps?
Ardently anti-sovereignty anglo-Montréalers apparently don’t believe these processes — cultural decimation — are real or that they could ever happen here because Canada is “bilingual” — even though French is in statistical decline and its French features, wherever they’re not being actively fought for, are being curtailed (like immersion in NB).
Exactly the opposite. I don’t speak for all anglo Montrealers, but I’m very worried about the future of French in Canada. I am not, however, as worried about the future of French in a province of six million where more than 80% of the population speak it. My impression of sovereignists is that they don’t care about French in New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba and elsewhere because those areas won’t be part of their new country anyway.
Anish
“Case in point: nobody talks to me in French in Montréal except people paid to do so, customers at my work, or my hispanic girlfriend! How am I supposed to learn? How am I supposed to believe French isn’t threatened here?”
Everyone spoke to me in French in Montreal when I was there, except for a few bus drivers who were really interested in practicing their English. And I’m Indian, so tons of people assumed I was anglophone at the outset, but I always spoke in French because my French was usually better than their English.
It helped that I rarely went west of University Street, but I was fluent in French within two years.
I don’t know what Montreal you are living in, but in Quebec, unilingual anglophones are the worst paid on average.
Mr Fagstein, you are an intelligent, open-minded individual. But, when it comes to the issue of the french language in Quebec, you don’t seem to get it as any average redneck from Saskatchewan doesn’t.
In a previous post, you wrote:
“The only catch is that Quebec wants to be unilingual while Canada does not.”
In this one:
“Canada has two official languages, one of which is French. Quebec’s sovereignty has always been about preserving French as the One True Language against the enemy English.”
Quebec doesn’t want to be unilingual, it just wants to make sure that the common language among all quebecers is french like english is for canadians in Canada (outside Quebec). So, for instance, my wife who is from Argentina and is bilingual spanish-english must also be able to communicate in french as a matter of respect of the french speaking majority and, unfortunately, because some french quebecers are still not fluent in english.
As for the french speaking quebecers, we certainly don’t want to be unilingual. We know that as soon as we put one foot out of our province, we must speak another language, usually english. In fact, we don’t have to go that far. In August 2008, when my family and I came back to our appartment in Le Plateau after two years in Argentina, we didn’t hear that much french. We were hearing a lot of spanish, english and a little bit of France type french. It seemed like if we could continue to live in spanish like we did in Argentina.
Is that a problem? No. Quebecers love to show off any other language they know. You can use any language you want on the street, but french must be the common language of all quebecers, when necessary. Why not make Quebec a place where you can live in any language you want, but with one official language everyone must know.
Now, what about Canada (outside Quebec)? It doesn’t want to be unilingual, but it is. I worked in Toronto, Charlottetown and northern Alberta. I studied one year in Vancouver at Simon Fraser University. I had to speak english because you can’t live in french in Canada unless you live on Parliament Hill or in french-canadian communities. That’s about it for the bilinguism dream. I think it is much easier to live in english in Quebec than in french in Canada (outside Quebec).
You see there is nothing to do with a so-called One True Language. It is just a matter of preserving a language that is a plus for North America and make sure that this territory called Quebec keeps his french-speaking status. This is exactly what law 101 was supposed to do in its original version. It has been weakened since then, but still helps to accomplish the above status. I understand that it must feel like a thorn in your arse from your side of the fence. But, it was necessary.
Let’s reverse the situation in a thought experience. The conquest didn’t happen. France won the 100 years war. North america is two-third french speaking, one quarter spanish-speaking and the rest (1/12) english-speaking. What could the latters do to make sure they keep speaking english?
Quebec doesn’t want to be unilingual, it just wants to make sure that the common language among all quebecers is french…
What’s the difference between being unilingual and making everyone speak a common language? (And besides, most of Quebec, and just about all of it outside Montreal, Gatineau and some Eastern townships, speak only French as it is.)
Let’s reverse the situation in a thought experience. The conquest didn’t happen. France won the 100 years war. North america is two-third french speaking, one quarter spanish-speaking and the rest (1/12) english-speaking. What could the latters do to make sure they keep speaking english?
They’d just keep speaking English, as the English minority in Quebec is doing despite government efforts against them.
Antonio
No Fagstein,
“money and ethnic votes” translates as “l’argent et LES votes ethniques”
“money and some ethnic votes” translates as “l’argent et DES votes ethniques”
Antonio
Fagstein,
you said: “What’s the difference between being unilingual and making everyone speak a common language? (And besides, most of Quebec, and just about all of it outside Montreal, Gatineau and some Eastern townships, speak only French as it is.)”
the difference is that an unilingual person speaks only one language while the person that knows the common language may also know other languages. In Quebec, we want the common language to be only French, other languages can be encouraged, but institutions and such must be in French only. We don’t want the common langauges in Quebec to be both French and English. But you are welcome to learn English on your own. It is the difference between individual bilingualism and instiutional bilingualism. Many sovereignists encourage the former but not the latter. Bill 101 does not go far enough; there should be no funding for public English instiutions such as schools and hospitals. If anglophones want them, they should fund them themselves.
Don’t give me that crap that Canada is bilingual. Except for Quebec, the common language in Canada is English, it is hard to get French services elswhere in Canada. Quebecers are more bilingual than Canadians elswhere.
I’m not going to sit here and say that Canada is fully bilingual. But it is trying. That’s the key difference.
And while it’s heartwearming to hear that Quebec encourages individual bilingualism (provided you don’t want your children educated in the language they understand using your taxpayer money), the activities of the Jeunes Patriotes suggest that some radicals don’t want English here period. And few of the more moderate sovereignists are doing anything to discourage this idea.
Anish
Great. Deny medical care (I thought this was a human right) to those who speak English. And just so you know, I worked and studied at McGill—it was once private and exclusively anglophone, INCLUDING its large hospital system. Then it was taken over by the government, and in return, funded by it, weakening its ability to support itself privately.
Now papers outside of the English department can be written in French and MUST be graded. Most of the hospitals have better patient services in French then English (research is largely English, but that is a reality of science and of having an international faculty).
But no, after doing this, and integrating, they should then be cut off. Sometimes I am glad I moved from Montreal, then I realize that most Western Quebec sovereignists are not such massive ideologues because they understand the realities of a multilingual and multicultural society
Unilingual means speaking only one language. It means we speak french and that’s it. Nothing more, nothing less.
Having french as a common language means you can speak many languages but french must be one of them.
For instance, in Germany, the common language is german but in school they must learn at least three (I think) other languages.
In Catalunya, they must learn catalán (Catalunya’s official language) and spanish (Spain’s official language).
Outside the areas you mentioned (I was born in Quebec City), more people than you think can manage english. They listen to english speaking bands and watch english speaking TV and understand most of it. Put a canadian from Borden or Kenora in front of a TV to listen to a french speaking band video and Radio-Canada. Then ask him to talk about it. Ackward moment…
I would say that the percentage of bilingual (english-french) in Rimousky is certainly higher than in Saskatoon, North Bay or Thunder Bay.
I think I once heard Justin Trudeau say that one aspect of being canadian is to be bilingual (english-french). Well, it seems that the real canadians are mostly the french-english quebecers, the french canadians. That leaves almost three quarter of the country, mostly in Canada (outside Quebec) itself.
I will add that I found more people voluntarly speaking to me in french in the US (Boston, Washington and San Francisco). I don’t even count Lousiana. That is one of the reasons why I always prefered to vacation in the US instead of Canada (outside …). Always felt more at home, more welcomed, discussions are more relaxed. We don’t have historical stains (majority-minority stuff, language issues, sovereighty) interferencing with our relationships.
And as for the last comment that they would just keep speaking english. Come on you can do better than that. Take away the comfort of having 300 millions english-speaking people to back you up and speaking a strong international language, wouldn’t they take an extra step just too make sure they keep speaking english. They would feel a little, just a little bit nervous about losing their mother tongue. Moreover, if they get included in another nation where the majority speaks another language.
Take away the comfort of having 300 millions english-speaking people to back you up…
There’s this impression I get that hard-core francophone sovereignists think us anglos are part of some massive conspiracy to eradicate French from North America, and that it’s ok to discriminate against Quebec anglos because we are the oppressors and there are plenty of other places we could live if we don’t like it.
Unfortunately, people from the U.S. and the rest of Canada are not “backing me up”. They don’t drive my buses or police my streets. You could make an argument (and I would agree) that there is a strong cultural influence of English from the U.S. and Canada, but that ignores the fact that francophone Quebec has a very strong cultural base (much stronger than what English Canada could ever hope for).
Anish
“I would say that the percentage of bilingual (english-french) in Rimousky is certainly higher than in Saskatoon, North Bay or Thunder Bay.”
Rimouski. And no, I’ve been there, and you must be kidding. I seriously think that the strip club was the only place English was understood.
Joseph
As much as I love your blog, I have to agree with Eric. People can speak English if they want to. But for issues of government or if the person you’re talking to doesn’t speak English, you have to speak French. Unilingualism is better than bilingualism because in a bilingual country (Canada) English and French have equal rights. Doesn’t that mean that everyone should speak both languages to allow people of those language groups to speak their own language to you? Doesn’t that defeat the purpose of letting people keep their own language? This is hardly the case in Canada with heavily-English and heavily-French speaking areas. Quebec is a heavily-French speaking area, the de facto (and de jure) official language is French and we get along just fine.
Jean Naimard
He said “l’argent et des votes ethniques”. Which translates more properly as “money and ethnic votes”.
Splithairmantics. If he meant “money and ethnic votes”, he would have said «l’argent et LES votes ethniques».
«Des» means “some”. So he meant ”money and some ethnic votes”.
Being from Hawaii, I can assure you that any bilingualism there is as much a feel-good joke as Canadian bilingualism is in Vancouver. Hawaiian serves as a decorative language, used for some signage on government buildings and some non-threatening chants given at ceremonies here and there.
I wonder how yankees feel threatened by hawaïan, given how much they are scared shitless by mexicans…
I have yet to see any official state documents in Hawaiian, and I doubt you could defend yourself in court in Hawaiian. There are classes and groups dedicated to learning it, but it won’t have any power of attraction and nothing economically important will go on in Hawaiian.
It was the same thing here with french 50 years ago, back in the “speak white” era.
Louisiana is used as the example for what Québec could become. The economic center of Louisiana became hollowed out of any status-attached French and it, too, became decorative and non-threatening (Regis can come down to NOLA and chow down on “baynays”) save for outlying, impoverished country bumpkins whose “French” is probably incomprehensible to anyone else, and virtually useless there.
We have seen what the anglo-saxon steamroller can do, and it won’t happen to us.
Ardently anti-sovereignty anglo-Montréalers apparently don’t believe these processes — cultural decimation — are real or that they could ever happen here
Of course, because they’re not facing the effects of it.
Case in point: nobody talks to me in French in Montréal except people paid to do so, customers at my work, or my hispanic girlfriend!
You just can’t erase 250 years of colonization overnight… The old reflex to speak english to strangers still kicks in…
Exactly the opposite. I don’t speak for all anglo Montrealers, but I’m very worried about the future of French in Canada.
If you were genuinely worried about it, you would not carry the time-honoured english attitude towards us which so blatantly shines through whatever veeneer of respectability you try to slap on. For one thing, you would start by getting clues about what really happens instead of relying on obviously biased english accounts.
I am not, however, as worried about the future of French in a province of six million where more than 80% of the population speak it. My impression of sovereignists is that they don’t care about French in New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba and elsewhere because those areas won’t be part of their new country anyway.
We don’t care much, because we’ve been backstabbed by them so many times in the past. If they really want to remain french, they can come here, because there is no way that they’ll be able to be french in Canada.
Quebec doesn’t want to be unilingual, it just wants to make sure that the common language among all quebecers is french like english is for canadians in Canada (outside Quebec). So, for instance, my wife who is from Argentina and is bilingual spanish-english must also be able to communicate in french as a matter of respect of the french speaking majority and, unfortunately, because some french quebecers are still not fluent in english.
It’s not only a question of respect (here, I write english because everyone does – if that’s not respect, what is it? – and it ain’t brown-nosing, no sir!), but a question of driving home to immigrants the point that we are french, first and foremost.
You see there is nothing to do with a so-called One True Language. It is just a matter of preserving a language that is a plus for North America and make sure that this territory called Quebec keeps his french-speaking status. This is exactly what law 101 was supposed to do in its original version. It has been weakened since then, but still helps to accomplish the above status. I understand that it must feel like a thorn in your arse from your side of the fence. But, it was necessary.
English commercial signs are collateral damage in the drive of pointing out that Québec is french. No matter how much english signs there would be in the west-island ghetto, it will not change the fact that Québec is more than 80% french, and immigrants have to be made aware of this, especially if they are in the west-island ghetto.
Let’s reverse the situation in a thought experience. The conquest didn’t happen. France won the 100 years war.
Er, but they did: the english were driven out of France… :)
You probably meant the seven years war… Eventually, the british offered Canada back to France, but the king prefered to choose the carribean islands for the sugar plantations, abandonning 60,000 french people at the hands of the archennemy. The Nation of France eventually revolted against the monarchy in the french revolution when it was adamantly clear that the monarchy was not acting in the interest of the Nation.
North america is two-third french speaking, one quarter spanish-speaking and the rest (1/12) english-speaking. What could the latters do to make sure they keep speaking english?
It’s not that simple. The english are imperialists, and they would have waged all sorts of petty wars against the french zones near their frontiers, especially that they would be fighting the dreaded catholics who don’t want people to get rich and the indians who are not even white. And it’s not a given that the spanish would have allied with the french, given their history of fighting the french king; at best, they would have harbored an uneasy neutrality that would have been constantly violated by both the french and english according to the fortunes of evolving politics. There would have been perpetual squirmishes, and eventually, when the most heavily developped territories had no more frontiers left, a full scale war would have erupted, and thanks to the vast ressources of North America, it would have been a greatly devastating war, unhindered by any Channel, at par with the world wars of the last century.
They’d just keep speaking English, as the English minority in Quebec is doing despite government efforts against them.
There. You see when I say you are blatantly clueless??? You sound just like Westerner on the Galganov thead (in fact, I had to look if it wasn’t really Westerner who wrote that post to make sure it was you!!!). I have been hanging for months on the Galganov thread and despite having asked many times to have examples of how the government acts against the english, I have yet to see any definite proof of it.
Indeed, you sound just like any average alberta redneck. And I’ll say that working for The Gazoo sure does not help either (not that I say you oughta work for Pédaleau or Desmarais, but…).
The comparison with Hawaiian or Louisiana French is interesting, but I don’t think either of those languages were spoken by such a huge majority of millions of people. Also, I think attitudes toward languages have changed drastically in the past 100 years. We’re no longer forcing minorities to abandon their language in favour of the majority.
Similarly, the “speak white era” you talk about is not in danger of returning to Quebec.
The english are imperialists
So were the French. And the Spanish, and the Portuguese. I don’t see how arguing about European imperialism 400 years ago makes a difference in this debate. England and France’s control over their colonies has long since passed.
despite having asked many times to have examples of how the government acts against the english, I have yet to see any definite proof of it.
Restricting access to English education, restricting English communication at work and in business, and all the other aspects of Quebec’s language law that encourages the supremacy of French by putting limits on the use of other languages, combined with the enforcement of such laws that tends to be only used against English.
s&t
Naimard,
Verify your facts when discussing Jews please as you are totally wrong my friend. What about Lionel-Groulx? Was he an Anglo-saxon? I know he was extremely anti-sematic and you know what? The Francophones name a metro station after him, this is the kind of sick history they’re proud of???? Disgusting!
Oh, by the way, I know Jewish people very well as I work in the community and what you portray is in fact false.
steph
Except looking at French colonial history vs. British colonial history they’d probably be way more persecuted.
(granted comparisons between colonial regimes could just be comparing different shades of ‘evil’)
Marc
“I’m not going to sit here and say that Canada is fully bilingual. But it is trying. That’s the key difference.”
It’s trying? Where? Certainly not in Brockville, ON – the most anti-French town I’ve been in. I committed the heinous crime of stopping for gas with a Quebec plate on my car and had several insults hurled at me.
Since Trudeau brought in his bilingualism in 1969, close to (and probably over) a trillion dollars has been slung at it. And since I know for a fact that French service is practically impossible to come by west of Ottawa, its fate has been decided. At that cost, every single individual from coast to coast should be perfectly fluent in both English and French. But that isn’t the case. It’s been one of the greatest failures ever and as a result, that chapter is done like dinner. Time to move on. The only way to make Trudeau’s dream come true nowadays would be to impose it by force (laws, re-education, etc.). Somehow, I can’t see much support for that.
Marc
“I think I once heard Justin Trudeau say that one aspect of being canadian is to be bilingual (english-french). Well, it seems that the real canadians are mostly the french-english quebecers, the french canadians. That leaves almost three quarter of the country, mostly in Canada (outside Quebec) itself.”
That’s a mindset also shared by Michael Ignatieff. Not long ago he said something along the lines of “…the essence of being Canadian is to know both official languages…” By that logic, as far as I’m concerned, someone who is unilingual is less Canadian than someone who isn’t.
Nice job, Iggy. Way to piss off a huge chunk of the country.
Charles
Sorry, I haven’t figured out how to do the quoting thing yet…
Jean Naimard, though I can tell you’re pleased to have me on your side of the sovereignty issue, I do take issue, to put it mildly, with your characterization of Americans as “extremely racist” and “scared shitless of Mexicans”. It doesn’t jive well with your depiction of Québec as tolerant (luckily, I’ve found most Québecers of any linguistic or ethnic stripe to be somewhat less prone to assume I have a white hood in my closet next to my AK-47). My mother is Irish-American from El Paso, Texas, and I grew up speaking English and Spanish at home, even though none of my family is the least bit Hispanic. (I also grew up white in cities like New Orleans, Baltimore, and Memphis, so in a sense I’ve been in the position of a local minority but national majority my entire life…) At this point in my life, I speak English, French, Spanish, and Arabic. It’s all right, though; with in-laws from the Middle East, I’ve gotten used to sweeping generalizations about my country of birth. Sigh.
“Take away the comfort of having 300 millions english-speaking people to back you up”
What conspiracy? I was not talking about conspiracy. I only meant demographic pressure. The english language won’t vanish from Quebec for three reasons: 1) Except for some paranoid nationalist “bluenecks”, the great majority of Quebecers considers the english community as a plus for Quebec. 2) English is so present in our daily life and important internationally that it would be foolish to expect its disappearance. 3) Anyway, who will teach english to our children? Just kidding:)).
So, it has less to do with a so-called ” calculated agression” than with lazyness from our part. It is easier to blend in with the surrounding than make this extra little effort to keep our differences. This is more or less what has been going on in the french-canadian communities all around Canada (outside …).
No, that one’s my fault. Not sure if it’s WordPress or the theme I have installed, but replies don’t work for anyone but me (probably because I’m using a registered account). One of these days I’ll get around to fixing it.
Jean Naimard
The english are imperialists
So were the French.
No. The english were forced to have an empire, because their poor little island was soon stripped of ressources, forcing the british to get them overseas.
By comparison, France is a bountiful country, and having a colonial empire was not a question life-or-death. They had an empire, for sure, but it was just for copycat reasons, because it was fashionable. And they surely did not care as much about their empire as the british did; witness how readily they dumped North-America. Those who got North-America eventually got to (kinda) control the world.
And lastly, at the end of World War II, France and Britain were stripped of their empires. Without it’s empire, Britain was completely broke, bankrupt, despondent, while France went on into 30 solid years of unprecedented economic growth (the «trente glorieuses»); meanwhile, Britain had strict currency controls installed for 20 years after the war!
Restricting access to English education,
There is no restriction to english education if you are canadian. If you are or your parents are not of canadian origin, you have no business going to english school.
THIS IS JUST LIKE ANY OTHER GODDAMMED FUCKING NORMAL COUNTRY ON EARTH!!! NO COUNTRY IN THE WORLD ALLOWS PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHING IN ANOTHER LANGUAGE THAN THE MAJORITY’S!!!! WHY THE FUCK IS IT SO GODDAMMED FUCKING HARD FOR YOU BLOKES TO FUCKING UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE FUCKING ACTING LIKE EVERY OTHER GODDAMMED FUCKING SACRAMENT D’HOSTIE DE CALVAIRE DE TABARNAK DE CRISS COUNTRY ON THIS FUCKING PLANET????
WHY THE FUCK RHODESIAN ENGLISH WOULD GODDAMMED BE FUCKING SO SPECIAL SO NOT TO DO LIKE EVERYONE ELSE???
Do you understand now when you are told that you are no different from any run-of-the-mill western redneck???
restricting English communication at work and in business,
The majority of people in Québec are french, so please explain why it is wrong to force a tiny minority to use the language of the majority.
and all the other aspects of Quebec’s language law that encourages the supremacy of French by putting limits on the use of other languages, combined with the enforcement of such laws that tends to be only used against English.
So, if you are supposedly so concerned about the future of french, how are we supposed to protect it against the english (because the largest threat comes from english) without having active measures to ensure that immigrants think that they can live in english in Québec??? You can’t have your cake and eat it. Either you are truly concerned about french and understand that the overwhelming theat of english has to be curbed, or you really are not and only want to go back 40 years when french was definitely going to be eradicated.
What about Lionel-Groulx?
This is outside the scope of this discussion. Lionel-Groulx’s purported “antisemitism” has been thoroughly debunked elsewhere. (Oh, you want to tackle me head on on this? I’m not afraid of doing so — the jews are not untouchable; they’re mean bitches who whine the loudest and they think that they can control everything, but that shall not deter he who has the solid facts behind him —, but I will not redo what I did. So go look elsewhere for what I said about that, read it, and then if you really think that you have arguments, come back and I’ll tear them to shreds).
Sorry, I haven’t figured out how to do the quoting thing yet…
It’s easy: just enclose the to-be-quoted-text with <blockquote> and </blockquote> tags. If you use Firefox, you will find this very helpful.
Jean Naimard, though I can tell you’re pleased to have me on your side of the sovereignty issue, I do take issue, to put it mildly, with your characterization of Americans as “extremely racist” and “scared shitless of Mexicans”.
I knew some would… :) :) :) As it happens, I’ve been hanging around some pretty US right-wingos (in a totally unrelated domain, many people had problems with a given individual on the Internet, and of that bunch of people, I guess I was the only “lefto” – we helped each other out — the one who was the most helpful was the prototypical appalachian hillbilly, but a true southern gentleman), and I had to deal several americans during several heavy-machinery deals so I am more exposed to their views than to mainstream views; hence my perception that americans are scared of latinos.
It doesn’t jive well with your depiction of Québec as tolerant (luckily, I’ve found most Québecers of any linguistic or ethnic stripe to be somewhat less prone to assume I have a white hood in my closet next to my AK-47).
AK-47? Wouldn’t that be a M-16??? :) :) :) :) :)
It’s all right, though; with in-laws from the Middle East, I’ve gotten used to sweeping generalizations about my country of birth. Sigh.
:)
Anish
“By comparison, France is a bountiful country, and having a colonial empire was not a question life-or-death. They had an empire, for sure, but it was just for copycat reasons, because it was fashionable. And they surely did not care as much about their empire as the british did; witness how readily they dumped North-America. Those who got North-America eventually got to (kinda) control the world.”
Are you serious? FASHIONABLE? They got into more than 3 world wars over being FASHIONABLE? I realize that fashion is important to the French, but you have to be kidding here. Spain was even more bountiful, so I guess the didn’t…oh…South America…cheap labor and free stolen gold…I see…
They dumped North America because rich white French nobles were making more money growing sugar on the backs of tortured Native and African slaves in the Caribbean.
They sure as hell didn’t give up West Africa without a fight—they massacred les tirailleur senegalais because they didn’t want to give up West Africa, they mass murdered vast groups of Southeast Asians to keep their empire intact…they invaded India in Pondicherry to try to seize the whole subcontinent (and by the way, domination of India was far more important to world domination anyway)…not to mention the French Quarter in Shanghai, French Guyana, Lebanon, the war crimes in Algeria, the islands of the South Pacific
As a white Quebecois, you have the Afrikaaner syndrome…if it happens to whitey, it is extra doubleplus bad, but WE never did anything bad to anyone because the ENGLISH did stuff that was 10% as bad to US!!
It’s childish thinking.
Now, I am no fan of the Canadian English superiority complex (it is laughable anyway, as an American, when Canadians complain about American domination and turn around and act ten times worse to the French all over their country) but damn you went totally delusional with that comment
Jean Naimard
I stand by by what I said.
The latter french massacres you describe are fully attributed to bourgeois government, who, by essence, are not french, but of anglo-saxon obedience.
Only people of anglo-saxon obedience believe that money is more important than anything else.
Could be – it is a sticky problem for translators. If you look carefully at the quote, l’argent: definite article, DES votes ethniques: indefinite article. Yes, both would normally get no article at all in English, but saying “some ethnic votes” renders the difference between the two better.
Remember that Parizeau’s wife of many years was a Polish writer. Parizeau has many faults but doesn’t hate immigrants.
I remember a Greek friend of mine deliberately voting Yes in the first referendum (1980) simply because she was so sick of the ignorant comments about Québec from her compatriots!
t&t
Nairmard,
You are so out of touch with reality and tend to contradict yourself many times.
Also, if you care to see where discrimination in Quebec is here is the UNESCO decision, is this implement in Quebec? I believe in Canada I can send my child to any school of my choice, I know, I did it. Not so here in Quebec. We need a liscense.
As for immigration, Quebec is the only province that controls 95% of their immigration, only refugee applications are handled by the Federal government. That combined with Bill 101, leave absolutely NO DOUBT in my mind the French language is not in danger.
Oh and prior to trying to argue that Canada is in violation of UNESCO’s recommendations, these recommendations are regarding QUEBEC. These decisions are implemented EVERYWHERE ELSE IN CANADA!
“In 1989 the premier of Quebec, Robert Bourassa, boasted that the Quebec government had “suspended fundamental liberties” by outlawing the use of English and other languages except French in most commercial advertising throughout Quebec, and by restricting entry to the English-language public school system in Quebec.
Canada ratified most of the world’s human rights treaties, which are international agreements that guarantee minimum standards for human civic, social and economic rights, educational rights and the protection of children. But Canada’s signature on these treaties is a hypocritical pretense because Quebec’s language laws ignore them.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Article 19
1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: (a) for the respect of the rights or reputations of others; (b) for the protection of national security or public order (ordre publique) or of public health or morals.
Article 50
The provisions of the present covenant shall extend to all parts of federal states without any limitations or exceptions.
The UN’s decision against Canada
“While the restrictions on outdoor advertising are indeed provided by law, the issue to be addressed is whether they are necessary for the respect of the rights of others. The rights of others could only be the rights of the francophone minority within Canada under article 27 [of the Covenant]. This is the right to use their own language, which is not jeopardized by the freedom of others to advertise in other than the French language. Nor does the Committee have reason to believe that public order would be jeopardized by commercial advertising outdoors in a language other than French… The Committee believes that it is not necessary, in order to protect the vulnerable position in Canada of the francophone group, to prohibit commercial advertising in English. This protection may be achieved in other ways that do not preclude the freedom of expression, in a language of their choice, of those engaged in such fields as trade. For example, the law could have required that advertising be in both French and English. A state may choose one or more official languages, but it may not exclude, outside the sphere of public life, the freedom to express oneself in a certain language. The committee accordingly concludes that there has been a violation of article 19, paragraph 2.”
But in Quebec, outdoor billboard advertising and public transit advertising is still prohibited in any language other than French. This violates both article 19(2) of the International Covenant and it also violates article 51, since the restriction applies only to Quebec. No other province restricts the language of commercial advertising. If you thought that freedom of expression was taken for granted in civilized countries you were wrong: free expression is suppressed in the Canadian Province of Quebec.
Access to English-language Education
UNESCO Convention/Recommendation against Discrimination in Education
Canada did not sign the Convention because education is a provincial jurisdiction and the provinces refused to allow Canada to sign the Convention on their behalf. Nevertheless, as a member of UNESCO, Canada is still bound by the Recommendation.
Section I (1)(c) of this convention prohibits discrimination in education:
1. For the purposes of this Recommendation, the term ‘discrimination’ includes any distinction, exclusion, limitation or preference which, being based on race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic condition or birth, has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing equality of treatment in education and in particular:
(c) Subject to the provisions of section II of this Recommendation, of establishing or maintaining separate educational systems or institutions for persons or groups of persons;
Section II
When permitted in a State, the following situations shall not be deemed to constitute discrimination, within the meaning of section I of this Recommendation:
(b) The establishment or maintenance, for religious or linguistic reasons, of separate educational systems or institutions offering an education which is in keeping with the wishes of the pupil’s parents or legal guardians, if participation in such systems or attendance at such institutions is optional [our italics] and if the education provided conforms to such standards as may be laid down or approved by the competent authorities, in particular for education of the same level;
When these sections are read together, the conclusion is inescapable. In the absence of choice, the establishment or maintenance, for linguistic reasons, of separate educational systems or institutions is discriminatory by definition.
Article 5 of this Covenant guarantees parents the right to establish private and/or religious schools that operate outside the state system.
Here are some paragraphs from Article 5 of this Covenant.
(c) It is essential to recognize the right of members of national minorities to carry on their own educational activities, including the maintenance of schools and, depending on the educational policy of each State, the use and teaching of their own language, provided however:
(i) That this right is not exercised in a manner which prevents the members of these minorities from understanding the culture and language of the community as a whole and from participating in its activities, or which prejudices national sovereignty;
(ii) That the standard of education is not lower than the general standard laid down or approved by the competent authorities; and
(iii) That attendance at such schools is optional.
The law in Quebec
The passages apply to Canada’s “national minority” of French Canadians, who comprise perhaps twenty-four percent of the total population. But Quebec’s language law violates this treaty.
In Quebec, children of French-speaking parents are prohibited from attending English schools. English-speaking immigrant children are forced into French-language schools. There is no option. The right to attend an English public school in Quebec is hereditary, being passed from parents to their children, and so down the generations, establishing a “blood line” of people raised in Quebec who are eligible to attend English schools in Quebec. This “blood line” excludes all children of French-speaking parents from anywhere in Canada or the rest of the world, and it excludes English-speaking immigrants to Quebec from anywhere else in the world.
If you thought that HEREDITARY privileges disappeared along with FEUDALISM, you were wrong: hereditary privileges live on in the Canadian Province of Quebec.”
Jean Naimard
You are so out of touch with reality and tend to contradict yourself many times.
ORLY?
You are grasping at straws. All your arguments are hollow, and are only indicating that you cannot stomach that you are no longer 40 years earlier when the english could bulldoze the french. You only want to go back when the english would not have to learn french.
Also, if you care to see where discrimination in Quebec is here is the UNESCO decision, is this implement in Quebec? I believe in Canada I can send my child to any school of my choice, I know, I did it.
Are there french schools in Red Deer, Alberta?
Not so here in Quebec. We need a liscense.
A “liscence” for what?
As for immigration, Quebec is the only province that controls 95% of their immigration, only refugee applications are handled by the Federal government. That combined with Bill 101, leave absolutely NO DOUBT in my mind the French language is not in danger.
Oh and prior to trying to argue that Canada is in violation of UNESCO’s recommendations, these recommendations are regarding QUEBEC. These decisions are implemented EVERYWHERE ELSE IN CANADA!
“In 1989 the premier of Quebec, Robert Bourassa, boasted that the Quebec government had “suspended fundamental liberties” by outlawing the use of English and other languages except French in most commercial advertising throughout Quebec, and by restricting entry to the English-language public school system in Quebec.
BZZZZT! STOP RIGHT HERE!
The keyword are “commercial advertising throughout Quebec”. This is something brought about by croporations, and croporations are not human and thus cannot be construed by any remote twist of reasonning to enjoy human rights.
I guess that pretty well ends the discussion right there.
Oh, and about education, well, are you implying that french education is less good than english education? If you could prove that, yes, there would be a case of discrimination, so please go ahead, demonstrate that french education is less good than english education.
1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
Okay, who has had that right barred? Oh, yes, Ernst Zündel, who got jailed for saying that the shoah was bullshit… Did anyone got jailed for speaking english in Québec?
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
So? Where are there restrictions? Let’s recall that “everyone” means all humans, and croporations are **NOT** humans.
3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: (a) for the respect of the rights or reputations of others; (b) for the protection of national security or public order (ordre publique) or of public health or morals.
Ah, here is an interesting tid-bit. Restricting english commercial signs is a reasonable restriction on freedom of speech. The supreme court of Canada said so, and the UNESCO can agree too, because it’s for the protection of the national security of the french in Québec.
And no matter how you howl and whine and wail and bitch, it’s not going to change anything. Most people in Québec are perfectly happy with that, and in a democracy, that’s what all counts.
Canada did not sign the Convention because education is a provincial jurisdiction and the provinces refused to allow Canada to sign the Convention on their behalf. Nevertheless, as a member of UNESCO, Canada is still bound by the Recommendation.
No. The UNESCO has no jurisdiction over the internal affairs of Canada, much less of Québec. You are still grasping at straws. The UNESCO can howl and bitch and moan, it will change nothing. Now what will the UNESCO do? Send-in the zouaves pontificaux???
In Quebec, children of French-speaking parents are prohibited from attending English schools. English-speaking immigrant children are forced into French-language schools. There is no option. The right to attend an English public school in Quebec is hereditary, being passed from parents to their children, and so down the generations, establishing a “blood line” of people raised in Quebec who are eligible to attend English schools in Quebec. This “blood line” excludes all children of French-speaking parents from anywhere in Canada or the rest of the world, and it excludes English-speaking immigrants to Quebec from anywhere else in the world.
If you thought that HEREDITARY privileges disappeared along with FEUDALISM, you were wrong: hereditary privileges live on in the Canadian Province of Quebec.”
Booh Hoo Gaaah. Why do you whine about US being prevented to go to english schools? Because you want the “good french-canadians who know their place in Canada” be able to turn their offspring into english? Why should we be concerned about people who want to become the ennemy? If they want to do so, they are perfectly welcome to go elsewhere in Canada and turn their kids into crumpet-eaters. But not here, and certainly not with our hard-earned tax dollars!!!
If you want to get rid of hereditary privilege, let’s also get rid of the king/queen thing, and of inheritance; whenever someone croaks up, all the estate should go to the State. Why? No? Talk about selective whining!!!
No, in reality, you’re jut one of those intolerant english bigots that do not want anything to do with the french, one of those dinosaurs that normally should have left 30 years ago.
Now, tell us, why should we give any attention to your desires? You certainly are not a desirable citizen because to please you, we would have to go back in time, undoing the tremenduous social progress done in the last half-century.
Westerner
“Now, tell us, why should we give any attention to your desires? You certainly are not a desirable citizen because to please you, we would have to go back in time, undoing the tremenduous social progress done in the last half-century”
No, just be concerned about your minorities. I gotta tell you Jean, you could have easily been
recruited into Heinrich Himmlers’ outfit in the last war.
What social progress. Advancing one ethnic group at the expense of another is blatant discrimination just like your loi 101.
Your vision is so narrow that the blinders are now covering your eyes.
Gabriel
Your comparison of hispanics in the USA and francos in Quebec prove that you understand absolutely nothing of history. You’re quick to blame Quebecois for being allegedly racists. But your willingness to comment on a complex history that you obviously don’t comprehend is cavalier. I’m saying that to be nice, I mostly think it’s racist.
Jean Naimard
No, just be concerned about your minorities. I gotta tell you Jean, you could have easily been recruited into Heinrich Himmlers’ outfit in the last war.
Like hell you are. You’re only concerned about them when they are prevented from becoming english.
Whoops, why I am responding to a Godwin® post???
Line
Jean,
Combien de fois est-ce qu’il faut te répéter que la majorité des Anglophones au Québec sont bilingues avant que ça rentre dans ta petite tête. Je vois partout ou t’écris nous ne voulons pas parler ou apprendre le français. Ya t-il quelque chose que tu ne comprends pas? J’ai pensé peut-être que si je t’écris dans TA langue que tu comprendras. Nous ne sommes pas ceux ou celles qui veulent que la langue disparaitre, et tes propos sont ridicule. Je pense que tu vis toujours des années 1800. Nous sommes dans l’année 2009 mon homme, il faut s’évoluer un peu pour comprendre des choses.
Je pense le point que t&t à essayer de te faire t’as complètement manquer! Il/elle montrait qu’il existe aujourd’hui la discrimination au Québec. Corrige-toi sur le fait que les Anglophones veulent retourner dans le passé, c’est n’est pas juste complètement faux mais ça demontre l’insécurité de ton part.
De ce qui concerne les écoles françaises au Red Deer, oui, il y en a. En passant, il y en a partout au Canada! Et encore tu perds ta crédibilité. http://education.alberta.ca/francais/parents/choice/lfrschools.aspx
De ce qui parle «de licence», je crois que c’est le Certificat d’éligibilité que quelqu’un Québécois doit posséder pour éduquer leurs enfants dans les écoles Anglaises.
Et tu as raison, il n’y avait aucun Anglais qui était emprisonner pour parler l’Anglais au Québec mais il y en a bien des commerces qui ont était pénaliser pour avoir l’affichage dans les DEUX langues à la même grandeur. Et il y a des Anglophones qui fréquent l’école française qui ont eu des punissions pour parler Anglais dans la cour pendant leurs récréation. Je peux constater que ça n’existe pas dans les écoles Anglaises au Québec, ni à travers le Canada. Si un enfant francophone parle français dans la cour pendant leur récréation il n’y a pas des conséquences.
Et pour ce qui est de votre « interesting tid-bit» la cour Suprême à trouver au début la loi 101 était anticonstitutionnel et ils ont fait des concessions, c’est pour ça qu’il reste le droit d’afficher l’anglais dans les commerces mais plus petit que le français. UNESCO peut approuver et c’est ça la démocratie.
UNESCO à fait des recommandations, ils ne plaindre pas mais le Québec parait pas bien si un moment donné le Québec deviens un pays qui veut un siège à UNESCO. De tout façon ces lois, si jamais Québec deviens un pays, serions appliqués au Québec car c’est ça la démocratie et il faut prendre soins des minorités dans un pays libre. Comme Canada le fait avec le Québec.
Avant de t’exprimer avec ton cœur. Assurez-vous des faits et de tes arguments. Je suggère que tu sors un peu de ta cave et vivre un peu car tu as trop de colère et hostilité. Tu verras que la vie n’est pas si pire! :)
Jean Naimard
Combien de fois est-ce qu’il faut te répéter que la majorité des Anglophones au Québec sont bilingues avant que ça rentre dans ta petite tête. Je vois partout ou t’écris nous ne voulons pas parler ou apprendre le français.
La majorité des anglais au Canada ne veulent pas apprendre le français; ça se voit très bien par leur attitude. Même si tous les anglais du Québec ne seraient pas comme ça, ça n’y changera pas grand-chose. Parce qu’il faut considérer les anglais dans tout le Canada, car ceux du Québec ne se considèrent pas comme québécois (hormis une toute petite minorité).
Ya t-il quelque chose que tu ne comprends pas? J’ai pensé peut-être que si je t’écris dans TA langue que tu comprendras. Nous ne sommes pas ceux ou celles qui veulent que la langue disparaitre, et tes propos sont ridicule. Je pense que tu vis toujours des années 1800. Nous sommes dans l’année 2009 mon homme, il faut s’évoluer un peu pour comprendre des choses.
Oui, justement, en 2009, nous ne devrions pas devoir protéger notre langue contre l’anglicisation des immigrants prônée par les anglais et le gouvernement fédéral. La loi 101 a pratiquement anéanti l’outil principal d’élimination du français (qui est l’anglicisation des immigrants) et 30 ans plus tard, les anglais n’en sont toujours pas revenus, et ils ne cessent de la décrier.
Je pense le point que t&t à essayer de te faire t’as complètement manquer! Il/elle montrait qu’il existe aujourd’hui la discrimination au Québec. Corrige-toi sur le fait que les Anglophones veulent retourner dans le passé, c’est n’est pas juste complètement faux mais ça demontre l’insécurité de ton part.
Qui ne serait pas insécurisé en étant entouré de 50 fois plus de gens qui dans le meilleur des cas se contrefoutent de vous? Parce que c’est notre situation, et seule une vigilance constante permettra de contrer toute tentative de minorisation.
Vous êtes anglaise, vous n’êtes pas menacée, donc vous ne pouvez pas comprendre celà.
De ce qui concerne les écoles françaises au Red Deer, oui, il y en a. En passant, il y en a partout au Canada! Et encore tu perds ta crédibilité.
Ça ne change rien au fait que l’Alberta gueule très fort contre le français.
Et tu as raison, il n’y avait aucun Anglais qui était emprisonner pour parler l’Anglais au Québec mais il y en a bien des commerces qui ont était pénaliser pour avoir l’affichage dans les DEUX langues à la même grandeur.
Un commerce n’est pas humain, donc on ne peut parler de «droits de l’Homme» pour un commerce. Un commerce n’a pas plus le droit d’afficher en anglais que de faire de la publicité mensongère.
Et il y a des Anglophones qui fréquent l’école française qui ont eu des punissions pour parler Anglais dans la cour pendant leurs récréation. Je peux constater que ça n’existe pas dans les écoles Anglaises au Québec, ni à travers le Canada. Si un enfant francophone parle français dans la cour pendant leur récréation il n’y a pas des conséquences.
Une école d’immersion se devra d’avoir des règles plus strictes; les élèves qui s’y trouvent ont accepté de se conformer à ces règles, et si elles demandent une punition pour parler anglais, et bien c’est l’affaire de l’école.
Et pour ce qui est de votre « interesting tid-bit» la cour Suprême à trouver au début la loi 101 était anticonstitutionnel et ils ont fait des concessions, c’est pour ça qu’il reste le droit d’afficher l’anglais dans les commerces mais plus petit que le français. UNESCO peut approuver et c’est ça la démocratie.
Non. La démocratie, ce n’est pas de subjuguer la volonté de tout un peuple sous la botte d’une constitution écrite par un ennemi acharné du Québec; en France, par exemple, la volonté du peuple est explicitement au dessus de la constitution; c’est ainsi que l’élection du président de la République au suffrage universel a pu être adoptée par référendum, même si la notion était à la base anticonstitutionnelle.
C’est ça, la VRAIE démocratie: la volonté du peuple, pas celle d’un bout de papier.
UNESCO à fait des recommandations, ils ne plaindre pas mais le Québec parait pas bien si un moment donné le Québec deviens un pays qui veut un siège à UNESCO.
Ha! Ha! Ha! Il y a des pays bien pires que le Québec en matière des droits de l’Homme qui siègent à l’Unesco.
Vous reprenez le refrain habituel des anglais anti-Québec qui chiâlent contre la loi 101 en disant qu’elle viole les droits de l’Homme, et bien évidemment, vous ne comprenez pas qu’il y a une distinction entre l’homme et son commerce parce que pour vous, le commerce est un élément essentiel de votre culture. Ce n’est pas le cas pour nous; le commerce est un mal nécéssaire qu’il faut encadrer le plus rigoureusement possible, afin d’éviter que le public se fasse fourrer, et le commerçant n’est pas digne de confiance.
De tout façon ces lois, si jamais Québec deviens un pays, serions appliqués au Québec car c’est ça la démocratie et il faut prendre soins des minorités dans un pays libre. Comme Canada le fait avec le Québec.
Oui, le canada prend très bien soin de nous, avec des juges d’immigration qui disent carrément aux immigrants qu’ils doivent parler anglais au Québec (je l’ai personnellement vu — j’aurais bien jeté la juge par la fenêtre, mais j’ai eu peur de frapper quelqu’un avec).
Avant de t’exprimer avec ton cœur. Assurez-vous des faits et de tes arguments.
Je ne fais que ça.
Je suggère que tu sors un peu de ta cave
Je ne suis pas marié (now, that’s a very deeeeep one).
Marc
Line:
While I never agree with what Jean says, he’s right about UNESCO. Anything UNESCO says is just a suggestion – it has no official powers. You must not forget that UNESCO is an arm of the United Nations – one of the most useless bodies on the face of the Earth. The UN is a roundtable for totalitarian tin-pot nations ruled by barbarians. Remember they were the ones who put Qaddafi in charge of human rights.
Jean Naimard
The UN is a roundtable for totalitarian tin-pot nations ruled by barbarians. Remember they were the ones who put Qaddafi in charge of human rights.
And Muammar Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi (???????) is a “terrorist”! But it could be worse, they could have put there our great ally, Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud (???? ??????? ???????? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ????), king of Saudi Barbaria…
So? If there are french federalists, there can be english “separatists”, no? And there are more than you think.
History is on our side, and anyone with no occult interests that is given the facts naturally gets on our side.
The comparison isn’t so simple. Canada has two official languages, one of which is French. Quebec’s sovereignty has always been about preserving French as the One True Language against the enemy English. It’s not a coincidence that anglo areas are almost unanimously federalist while francophone areas are at best about 60% sovereignist.
It is only one part of the idea behind sovereignty, the main one being that one nation CANNOT live under the boot/yoke/stare of another. Language is only the most visible (audible?) part of the debate, but there is no “one true language” (like you so cluelessly try to imply here — if there were, language laws would have been far more radical than they are). There are a myriad other points, like our distrust of private entreprise (we have been shafted so many times by merchants and industrialists, much more than by governments), the fact that we don’t absolutely worship individual responsibility (SAAQ no-fault insurance) and we have a more collectivist vision of society, things that evolved from the socio-politico-historicalo-geographic conditions seen in France, which are totally different from those in Britain, hence the very different natures of our respective national characters which cannot be made to coexist in the same political space.
1. We have the SAAQ and consumer protection laws and all that other stuff. What policy does federalism prevent us from having?
2. I never heard any of this mentioned during Guy A. Lepage’s separatism sell. Just “Quebec is a nation” repeated over and over, with the statement that even though it accepts all cultures, the only language is French.
“Hey what’s up” Jay St.Louis with the baseball cap titled to the side. It is great that you are keeping it pure and francophone all the way my man. The anglo North American culture is in no way infiltrating into your everyday hip-hop lifestyle my cool brother. Look at you being all progressive and liberal with and black anglo woman. Yes you have overcome years of oppression by the anglo man and have defiantly moved on, only to wrap yourself in someone else’s culture. Go ahead walk around like a hip-hop gangsta yelling yoo yoo yoo man all day long. Keep that gene pool shallow my friend. It is funny how the shrill Celine only began making money when she began singhing in hinglish and Simple Plan they dooes the singhing in hinglish halso. They know how to butter their bread. You are probably one of those aholes that drive around your souped up Hondas on St Cath with the deep heavy bass anglo music, tinted windows down, one arm stretched out on the steering wheel the other holding you up while you are “coolly” hunched over to the right side pretending you are driving a manual shift.
Mon Dieu, man, lighten up.
Kinda hard to lighten up when you are constantly asked how many wives you have, told to go back to your country and being a maudite ethnie. So you tell them in French that you are born in Montreal, probably lived longer then they have in this city and that they should enlighten themselves with the rest of the world and that even though you may not practice the Catholic religion, or any religion for that matter that 1 wife is enough to handle. But you know the PQ has a good hold on stupidity of the uneducated much like the Republicans in the U.S.
I may not agree with Quebec sovereignty, but never would I make so absurd a generalization as to say that all its supporters are stupid.
It’s not quite that simple. I’m an anglo separatist too. Part of it undoubtedly has to do with the fact that I’m from Louisiana, and have seen what happens to French when it gets swallowed up, but mainly it has to do with the fact that I feel Québec as a political entity deserves the chance to exercise itself on the international stage, that I resent the endless condescension from the rest of Canada, and the fact that I feel Canada in and of itself has become rather dysfunctional as a country (see the paralyzing fear of amending the constitution and “stirring up the natives”). To me, it seems self-evident that without the viable threat of separation, francophones in Canada wouldn’t have any of the rights they now enjoy (French probably wouldn’t even be an official language at the federal level). Just weeks after the PQ was reduced to third place in 2007, New Brunswick eagerly eliminated early French immersion in its schools.
Also, areas like the Saguenay voted close to 75% for sovereignty in 1995.
You may think I’m naïve, but as an anglophone, an immigrant, and an American, I for one feel very comfortable with the Québec “national project.” My wife, a Palestinian immigrant who doesn’t even speak French, feels much the same way — in fact, she often laments that the language laws are as lax as they are, allowing her to coast along without being forced to learn French. Go figure.
“Just weeks after the PQ was reduced to third place in 2007, New Brunswick eagerly eliminated early French immersion in its schools.”
I don’t think those two are related. In any case, New Brunswick’s move received wide condemnation from anglophone New Brunswick parents.
Charles your wife wants the government to “force” her to learn French and that is why we need to go through this upheaval? If your wife has not learned French that is her own doing. Look, in the U.S they have English as the only official language. No one is forcing anyone to learn Spanish, but you know what, the smart ones are reading the tea leaves and realize they need to know Spanish to click with the growing population. No coercion, no gun to the head or knife to ones own throat. Stop blaming government for your lackadaisical approach to learning. All the opportunities are there for you and your wife to get educated and as a Quebec resident education is dirt cheap. So coast back into a school and learn. Don’t break up my country, over a simple thing as language.
Plenty, like direct taxation at manufacturers rather than excise taxes (this costs us billions per year as we cannot collect tobacco taxes directly from the manufacturers, so they export it to the US and they are smuggled back in). Or having prices posted on stuff in private retail stores that include taxes; having to separately calculate the taxes is a royal pain in the butt. A legal system that cannot be challenged by monied interests (supreme court of Canada, I fart in your general direction).
There are many philosophical differences between our respectives views on society that will never be able to be reconciled at the general satisfaction of everyone involved here, so the best way for everyone is the separate way.
Canada, too is puportedly a “nation”. Which also accepts all cultures, but the only language is english.
(This must be asked with a tinge of envy). You oughta snappily answer back something like “how many assholes do you have?”…
¿ DUH ? Well, of course! The threat of separation is a nifty gun over the redcoats’ head. The redcoats only understand when they have a knife on their throat. (You’re not english, but american – americans, too, fought the redcoats and separated, so this explains why you are “separatist”).
Canada has always refused to have strict reciprocity agreements with Québec with regards on how the french outside of Québec are treated, because they could not tolerate having to treat the french as well as we treat the english anymore than they could stomach having the english treated here like they treat the french.
That’s because we, the french, are very tolerant. Anglo-saxons* would never have tolerated anyone to do what they did to us – witness how the yankees booted the redcoats 240 years ago.
* Generic french (from France) political science term that designates both the americans and the british.
“Canada, too is puportedly a “nation”. Which also accepts all cultures, but the only language is english.”
You’re reversing the argument here. Canada is a bilingual country that wants to stay bilingual (despite what some Albertans may think). Quebec is a bilingual province that wants to have one language.
In general, the PQ, with its strong trade-union backing, has been somewhat more progressive than the PLQ. It has nothing to do with the Republicans.
Charles, there are a lot of opportunities for your wife to learn French free of charge.
And in any case, I am thrilled by the decline of the ADQ, the party that actually represents the suspicious rural outsiders Vahan refers to.
I’m anglophone and I’m separatist.
And, of course, anonymous.
I’m sil and I’m a PC….
:{
Actually, just for the record Vahan, the U.S. doesn’t have an official language.
If you had read my comment carefully, you would see that the first part is me explaining why I support sovereignty. The second part is merely a commentary on my part that Quebec’s attitude toward English is actually accepting enough to enable someone to be selected to immigrate, to live, and to work here without learning French at all (though not in the highest-paying jobs, naturally). I spoke French before I arrived in Québec, and I would still be pro-sovereignty if Québec were officially bilingual.
The United States has no official language, despite the best efforts of the far-right to impose one. Puerto Rico, New Mexico, Louisiana, and Hawaii are bilingual at the territorial/state level (the latter two in French and Hawaiian).
I find it highly amusing that the position of some of the federalist forces in Québec seems to be that immigrants are fine as long as they’re on the “right side” (at which point nationalist xenophobia is something to be condemned), but once we support sovereignty, then it’s back to being “your country” (and yours alone) and it’s no longer all right for us to participate in the political process. Hmmmmm. Would that make us “the ethnic vote”?
The one and only success I’ve had ordering a meal in a restaurant in French west of Ottawa was in Victoria where our server happened to be a transplant from Quebec City. You’d also have no problem doing such a thing in Welland which is 26% French. Therefore, I have no belief in this “Canada is a bilingual country” nonsense. As for New Brunswick, it is bilingual on paper only. A cousin of mine lives in NB and service in French isn’t exactly easy to come by.
Well, ¿DUH? of course he is! I can’t really blame him, given how they are stigmatized!!!
Indeed, you pinpointed it exactly. Parizeau put the finger on the problem right away, and this is why there were so many howls: he was right from the onset. The “earlier” immigrants who were anglicized by the federal government (greeks, italians, filipinos) are overwhelmingly against the french, because they were told that they had to learn english if they wanted a job here. And when they came here, indeed, they saw that the french were treated like the blacks are in the US, and they certainly didn’t want to become more “white niggers of America”. (As for the filipinos, it’s slightly different. They come here, expecting to go live in the US in the next few months [they seldom do, americans are extremely racist and do not want filipinos]. In the meanwhile, they get trapped in their little communities ran by big-shots who, of course, are liberals and thus tell them about the evil separatists).
Newer immigrants who grativated towards the french either thanks to law 101 or simply because culturally they were closer to the french (earlier vietnamese, armenians, south-americans, arabs), on the other hand, are much more likely to side with the french. Those who don’t do it for the usual money reasons. Remember that Parizeau said “money and some ethnic votes”.
The french-from-France are a different league; those who come here to make money will side with the federalists (they’re the “taxes is theft” crowd), thinking that Canada is just like the Europan Union (no it’s not; it was a business decision, taken when the incompetent family compact clearly saw it could not compete against the yankees, it forced confederation upon us — when the proposed referendum for Québec to join Confederation was clearly going to go bust, despite that only landowners then could vote and that our très sainte merde l’église scatholique romaine threatened excomunication to everyone who would vote against* [back then, voting was not secret], McDonald and Cartier cancelled it and replaced it by a legislature vote which only passed by 1 vote) and those who just come for the adventure are at first befuddled, but once they encounter the english hardassness towards the french will really see what things are and will side with us.
While we’re sinking into politically incorectness, let’s talk about the jews, too. 50 years ago, the jews had no problem serving people in french in their little shops; they saw that they were discriminated against just like the french were (this was when Mc-Gill had strict jewish quotas, and the WASP establishment was firmly closed). Then when the anti-jew discrimination diminished after the war, they got more influence, and firmly sided with the side of big money, the english, which is why jews vehemently oppose sovereignty, because they know very well that a more socialist country would tax them much more.
* The scatholic church was promised by the english total control over education of the french, insuring they could brainwash them into giving them lots of money — the sumptuousness of the churches is a good illustration of this State-sanctionned racket.
He said “l’argent et des votes ethniques”. Which translates more properly as “money and ethnic votes”.
“They come here, expecting to go live in the US in the next few months [they seldom do, americans are extremely racist and do not want filipinos]”
This is simply ridiculous. While I am in many ways sympathetic to the sovereignist philosophy, I am an American of Asian Indian descent. I have never experienced anything CLOSE to the racism I did in Quebec, even in Texas, Georgia or Tennessee. Stop being stupid and saying “Americans are extremely racist” when you are part of a movement (again, NO problem with the philosophy, just the backwards racists who people the movement) that REGULARLY uses tests of “pure laine” or “Quebecois de souche (my ass, you guys were imperialists in your own right for much of your history, own up to it) to equate with being Quebecois.
Stop denigrating a country that is VASTLY more diverse and accepting of immigrants as RACIST before you get your own house in order. When there comes a day I can walk down the streets in tough parts of Quebec City with my color skin and see a group of nationalist white boys with shaved heads and feel SAFE, then start throwing stones at glass houses…
And don’t pull the language shit on me…I speak fluent Quebecois French with a STRONG accent, so strong that in France I occasionally struggled accent-wise
I just watched Peter Sellers in “The Party” (other article) and your statement could only bring back that fond memory… Sorry, could not resist.
Oh yeah? How about the US immigration laws that automatically assume that everyone who shows at the doorstep wants to immigrate illegally? The way it works (no 4th amendment protection at the border), you essentially have to **PROVE** that you don’t intend to break the law when you show up.
White people from Canada are not very often annoyed at the border, but how about people who are not white and not from Canada?
Ouate de phoque? Who tests for “soucheness”??? Raymond Villeneuve???
Unlike Britain, France’s very survival did not depend on the plundering of the natural ressources that have been long depleted in Britain. France had a colonial empire only because it was fashionable at a time, so it only pursued it half-assedly. The only time when it was pursued more studiously was when the bourgeois had manged to subvert France during the industrial revolution. But again, France was hardly dependent on it’s empire so it still pursued it half-assedly (compared to the red coats). Best proof of it is that after world war II, when both France and Britain had their empires stripped for them, Britain was completely broke, destitute and bankrupt that it had to impose strict exchange controls for more than 20 years after the war, whereas France saw more than 30 solid continuous years of constant, unprecedented economic growth. Like is it’s empire actually stunted it’s Economy.
So, no, we, the french were globally much better imperialists than the red coats.
It’s very easy to look “more diverse” when you’re more than 40 times bigger.
There are no “though parts” in Québec. They are all equally limp and listen to garbage radio.
Besides that, I’d like to know where you get your shit, because it’s reall good stuff.
Colour me surprised (pun intended).
Being from Hawaii, I can assure you that any bilingualism there is as much a feel-good joke as Canadian bilingualism is in Vancouver. Hawaiian serves as a decorative language, used for some signage on government buildings and some non-threatening chants given at ceremonies here and there. I have yet to see any official state documents in Hawaiian, and I doubt you could defend yourself in court in Hawaiian. There are classes and groups dedicated to learning it, but it won’t have any power of attraction and nothing economically important will go on in Hawaiian.
Louisiana is used as the example for what Québec could become. The economic center of Louisiana became hollowed out of any status-attached French and it, too, became decorative and non-threatening (Regis can come down to NOLA and chow down on “baynays”) save for outlying, impoverished country bumpkins whose “French” is probably incomprehensible to anyone else, and virtually useless there.
I’m probably painting, as usual, in broad strokes, but the exceptions or details don’t do much to change the picture here.
Ardently anti-sovereignty anglo-Montréalers apparently don’t believe these processes — cultural decimation — are real or that they could ever happen here because Canada is “bilingual” — even though French is in statistical decline and its French features, wherever they’re not being actively fought for, are being curtailed (like immersion in NB).
Case in point: nobody talks to me in French in Montréal except people paid to do so, customers at my work, or my hispanic girlfriend! How am I supposed to learn? How am I supposed to believe French isn’t threatened here?
Finally, condemning us (anglo, pro-sovereignty immigrants) to adopt the federalist line or shut up is purely and simply an attack on the political rights of immigrants and we shouldn’t tolerate it.
I plan to volunteer for the Bloc at the next election. In Papineau perhaps?
Exactly the opposite. I don’t speak for all anglo Montrealers, but I’m very worried about the future of French in Canada. I am not, however, as worried about the future of French in a province of six million where more than 80% of the population speak it. My impression of sovereignists is that they don’t care about French in New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba and elsewhere because those areas won’t be part of their new country anyway.
“Case in point: nobody talks to me in French in Montréal except people paid to do so, customers at my work, or my hispanic girlfriend! How am I supposed to learn? How am I supposed to believe French isn’t threatened here?”
Everyone spoke to me in French in Montreal when I was there, except for a few bus drivers who were really interested in practicing their English. And I’m Indian, so tons of people assumed I was anglophone at the outset, but I always spoke in French because my French was usually better than their English.
It helped that I rarely went west of University Street, but I was fluent in French within two years.
I don’t know what Montreal you are living in, but in Quebec, unilingual anglophones are the worst paid on average.
Mr Fagstein, you are an intelligent, open-minded individual. But, when it comes to the issue of the french language in Quebec, you don’t seem to get it as any average redneck from Saskatchewan doesn’t.
In a previous post, you wrote:
“The only catch is that Quebec wants to be unilingual while Canada does not.”
In this one:
“Canada has two official languages, one of which is French. Quebec’s sovereignty has always been about preserving French as the One True Language against the enemy English.”
Quebec doesn’t want to be unilingual, it just wants to make sure that the common language among all quebecers is french like english is for canadians in Canada (outside Quebec). So, for instance, my wife who is from Argentina and is bilingual spanish-english must also be able to communicate in french as a matter of respect of the french speaking majority and, unfortunately, because some french quebecers are still not fluent in english.
As for the french speaking quebecers, we certainly don’t want to be unilingual. We know that as soon as we put one foot out of our province, we must speak another language, usually english. In fact, we don’t have to go that far. In August 2008, when my family and I came back to our appartment in Le Plateau after two years in Argentina, we didn’t hear that much french. We were hearing a lot of spanish, english and a little bit of France type french. It seemed like if we could continue to live in spanish like we did in Argentina.
Is that a problem? No. Quebecers love to show off any other language they know. You can use any language you want on the street, but french must be the common language of all quebecers, when necessary. Why not make Quebec a place where you can live in any language you want, but with one official language everyone must know.
Now, what about Canada (outside Quebec)? It doesn’t want to be unilingual, but it is. I worked in Toronto, Charlottetown and northern Alberta. I studied one year in Vancouver at Simon Fraser University. I had to speak english because you can’t live in french in Canada unless you live on Parliament Hill or in french-canadian communities. That’s about it for the bilinguism dream. I think it is much easier to live in english in Quebec than in french in Canada (outside Quebec).
You see there is nothing to do with a so-called One True Language. It is just a matter of preserving a language that is a plus for North America and make sure that this territory called Quebec keeps his french-speaking status. This is exactly what law 101 was supposed to do in its original version. It has been weakened since then, but still helps to accomplish the above status. I understand that it must feel like a thorn in your arse from your side of the fence. But, it was necessary.
Let’s reverse the situation in a thought experience. The conquest didn’t happen. France won the 100 years war. North america is two-third french speaking, one quarter spanish-speaking and the rest (1/12) english-speaking. What could the latters do to make sure they keep speaking english?
Merci et bonne journée :))
What’s the difference between being unilingual and making everyone speak a common language? (And besides, most of Quebec, and just about all of it outside Montreal, Gatineau and some Eastern townships, speak only French as it is.)
They’d just keep speaking English, as the English minority in Quebec is doing despite government efforts against them.
No Fagstein,
“money and ethnic votes” translates as “l’argent et LES votes ethniques”
“money and some ethnic votes” translates as “l’argent et DES votes ethniques”
Fagstein,
you said: “What’s the difference between being unilingual and making everyone speak a common language? (And besides, most of Quebec, and just about all of it outside Montreal, Gatineau and some Eastern townships, speak only French as it is.)”
the difference is that an unilingual person speaks only one language while the person that knows the common language may also know other languages. In Quebec, we want the common language to be only French, other languages can be encouraged, but institutions and such must be in French only. We don’t want the common langauges in Quebec to be both French and English. But you are welcome to learn English on your own. It is the difference between individual bilingualism and instiutional bilingualism. Many sovereignists encourage the former but not the latter. Bill 101 does not go far enough; there should be no funding for public English instiutions such as schools and hospitals. If anglophones want them, they should fund them themselves.
Don’t give me that crap that Canada is bilingual. Except for Quebec, the common language in Canada is English, it is hard to get French services elswhere in Canada. Quebecers are more bilingual than Canadians elswhere.
I’m not going to sit here and say that Canada is fully bilingual. But it is trying. That’s the key difference.
And while it’s heartwearming to hear that Quebec encourages individual bilingualism (provided you don’t want your children educated in the language they understand using your taxpayer money), the activities of the Jeunes Patriotes suggest that some radicals don’t want English here period. And few of the more moderate sovereignists are doing anything to discourage this idea.
Great. Deny medical care (I thought this was a human right) to those who speak English. And just so you know, I worked and studied at McGill—it was once private and exclusively anglophone, INCLUDING its large hospital system. Then it was taken over by the government, and in return, funded by it, weakening its ability to support itself privately.
Now papers outside of the English department can be written in French and MUST be graded. Most of the hospitals have better patient services in French then English (research is largely English, but that is a reality of science and of having an international faculty).
But no, after doing this, and integrating, they should then be cut off. Sometimes I am glad I moved from Montreal, then I realize that most Western Quebec sovereignists are not such massive ideologues because they understand the realities of a multilingual and multicultural society
Well the difference is:
Unilingual means speaking only one language. It means we speak french and that’s it. Nothing more, nothing less.
Having french as a common language means you can speak many languages but french must be one of them.
For instance, in Germany, the common language is german but in school they must learn at least three (I think) other languages.
In Catalunya, they must learn catalán (Catalunya’s official language) and spanish (Spain’s official language).
Outside the areas you mentioned (I was born in Quebec City), more people than you think can manage english. They listen to english speaking bands and watch english speaking TV and understand most of it. Put a canadian from Borden or Kenora in front of a TV to listen to a french speaking band video and Radio-Canada. Then ask him to talk about it. Ackward moment…
I would say that the percentage of bilingual (english-french) in Rimousky is certainly higher than in Saskatoon, North Bay or Thunder Bay.
I think I once heard Justin Trudeau say that one aspect of being canadian is to be bilingual (english-french). Well, it seems that the real canadians are mostly the french-english quebecers, the french canadians. That leaves almost three quarter of the country, mostly in Canada (outside Quebec) itself.
I will add that I found more people voluntarly speaking to me in french in the US (Boston, Washington and San Francisco). I don’t even count Lousiana. That is one of the reasons why I always prefered to vacation in the US instead of Canada (outside …). Always felt more at home, more welcomed, discussions are more relaxed. We don’t have historical stains (majority-minority stuff, language issues, sovereighty) interferencing with our relationships.
And as for the last comment that they would just keep speaking english. Come on you can do better than that. Take away the comfort of having 300 millions english-speaking people to back you up and speaking a strong international language, wouldn’t they take an extra step just too make sure they keep speaking english. They would feel a little, just a little bit nervous about losing their mother tongue. Moreover, if they get included in another nation where the majority speaks another language.
Merci et bonne journee :))
There’s this impression I get that hard-core francophone sovereignists think us anglos are part of some massive conspiracy to eradicate French from North America, and that it’s ok to discriminate against Quebec anglos because we are the oppressors and there are plenty of other places we could live if we don’t like it.
Unfortunately, people from the U.S. and the rest of Canada are not “backing me up”. They don’t drive my buses or police my streets. You could make an argument (and I would agree) that there is a strong cultural influence of English from the U.S. and Canada, but that ignores the fact that francophone Quebec has a very strong cultural base (much stronger than what English Canada could ever hope for).
“I would say that the percentage of bilingual (english-french) in Rimousky is certainly higher than in Saskatoon, North Bay or Thunder Bay.”
Rimouski. And no, I’ve been there, and you must be kidding. I seriously think that the strip club was the only place English was understood.
As much as I love your blog, I have to agree with Eric. People can speak English if they want to. But for issues of government or if the person you’re talking to doesn’t speak English, you have to speak French. Unilingualism is better than bilingualism because in a bilingual country (Canada) English and French have equal rights. Doesn’t that mean that everyone should speak both languages to allow people of those language groups to speak their own language to you? Doesn’t that defeat the purpose of letting people keep their own language? This is hardly the case in Canada with heavily-English and heavily-French speaking areas. Quebec is a heavily-French speaking area, the de facto (and de jure) official language is French and we get along just fine.
Splithairmantics. If he meant “money and ethnic votes”, he would have said «l’argent et LES votes ethniques».
«Des» means “some”. So he meant ”money and some ethnic votes”.
I wonder how yankees feel threatened by hawaïan, given how much they are scared shitless by mexicans…
It was the same thing here with french 50 years ago, back in the “speak white” era.
We have seen what the anglo-saxon steamroller can do, and it won’t happen to us.
Of course, because they’re not facing the effects of it.
You just can’t erase 250 years of colonization overnight… The old reflex to speak english to strangers still kicks in…
If you were genuinely worried about it, you would not carry the time-honoured english attitude towards us which so blatantly shines through whatever veeneer of respectability you try to slap on. For one thing, you would start by getting clues about what really happens instead of relying on obviously biased english accounts.
We don’t care much, because we’ve been backstabbed by them so many times in the past. If they really want to remain french, they can come here, because there is no way that they’ll be able to be french in Canada.
It’s not only a question of respect (here, I write english because everyone does – if that’s not respect, what is it? – and it ain’t brown-nosing, no sir!), but a question of driving home to immigrants the point that we are french, first and foremost.
English commercial signs are collateral damage in the drive of pointing out that Québec is french. No matter how much english signs there would be in the west-island ghetto, it will not change the fact that Québec is more than 80% french, and immigrants have to be made aware of this, especially if they are in the west-island ghetto.
Er, but they did: the english were driven out of France… :)
You probably meant the seven years war… Eventually, the british offered Canada back to France, but the king prefered to choose the carribean islands for the sugar plantations, abandonning 60,000 french people at the hands of the archennemy. The Nation of France eventually revolted against the monarchy in the french revolution when it was adamantly clear that the monarchy was not acting in the interest of the Nation.
It’s not that simple. The english are imperialists, and they would have waged all sorts of petty wars against the french zones near their frontiers, especially that they would be fighting the dreaded catholics who don’t want people to get rich and the indians who are not even white. And it’s not a given that the spanish would have allied with the french, given their history of fighting the french king; at best, they would have harbored an uneasy neutrality that would have been constantly violated by both the french and english according to the fortunes of evolving politics. There would have been perpetual squirmishes, and eventually, when the most heavily developped territories had no more frontiers left, a full scale war would have erupted, and thanks to the vast ressources of North America, it would have been a greatly devastating war, unhindered by any Channel, at par with the world wars of the last century.
There. You see when I say you are blatantly clueless??? You sound just like Westerner on the Galganov thead (in fact, I had to look if it wasn’t really Westerner who wrote that post to make sure it was you!!!). I have been hanging for months on the Galganov thread and despite having asked many times to have examples of how the government acts against the english, I have yet to see any definite proof of it.
Indeed, you sound just like any average alberta redneck. And I’ll say that working for The Gazoo sure does not help either (not that I say you oughta work for Pédaleau or Desmarais, but…).
The comparison with Hawaiian or Louisiana French is interesting, but I don’t think either of those languages were spoken by such a huge majority of millions of people. Also, I think attitudes toward languages have changed drastically in the past 100 years. We’re no longer forcing minorities to abandon their language in favour of the majority.
Similarly, the “speak white era” you talk about is not in danger of returning to Quebec.
So were the French. And the Spanish, and the Portuguese. I don’t see how arguing about European imperialism 400 years ago makes a difference in this debate. England and France’s control over their colonies has long since passed.
Restricting access to English education, restricting English communication at work and in business, and all the other aspects of Quebec’s language law that encourages the supremacy of French by putting limits on the use of other languages, combined with the enforcement of such laws that tends to be only used against English.
Naimard,
Verify your facts when discussing Jews please as you are totally wrong my friend. What about Lionel-Groulx? Was he an Anglo-saxon? I know he was extremely anti-sematic and you know what? The Francophones name a metro station after him, this is the kind of sick history they’re proud of???? Disgusting!
Oh, by the way, I know Jewish people very well as I work in the community and what you portray is in fact false.
Except looking at French colonial history vs. British colonial history they’d probably be way more persecuted.
(granted comparisons between colonial regimes could just be comparing different shades of ‘evil’)
“I’m not going to sit here and say that Canada is fully bilingual. But it is trying. That’s the key difference.”
It’s trying? Where? Certainly not in Brockville, ON – the most anti-French town I’ve been in. I committed the heinous crime of stopping for gas with a Quebec plate on my car and had several insults hurled at me.
Since Trudeau brought in his bilingualism in 1969, close to (and probably over) a trillion dollars has been slung at it. And since I know for a fact that French service is practically impossible to come by west of Ottawa, its fate has been decided. At that cost, every single individual from coast to coast should be perfectly fluent in both English and French. But that isn’t the case. It’s been one of the greatest failures ever and as a result, that chapter is done like dinner. Time to move on. The only way to make Trudeau’s dream come true nowadays would be to impose it by force (laws, re-education, etc.). Somehow, I can’t see much support for that.
“I think I once heard Justin Trudeau say that one aspect of being canadian is to be bilingual (english-french). Well, it seems that the real canadians are mostly the french-english quebecers, the french canadians. That leaves almost three quarter of the country, mostly in Canada (outside Quebec) itself.”
That’s a mindset also shared by Michael Ignatieff. Not long ago he said something along the lines of “…the essence of being Canadian is to know both official languages…” By that logic, as far as I’m concerned, someone who is unilingual is less Canadian than someone who isn’t.
Nice job, Iggy. Way to piss off a huge chunk of the country.
Sorry, I haven’t figured out how to do the quoting thing yet…
Jean Naimard, though I can tell you’re pleased to have me on your side of the sovereignty issue, I do take issue, to put it mildly, with your characterization of Americans as “extremely racist” and “scared shitless of Mexicans”. It doesn’t jive well with your depiction of Québec as tolerant (luckily, I’ve found most Québecers of any linguistic or ethnic stripe to be somewhat less prone to assume I have a white hood in my closet next to my AK-47). My mother is Irish-American from El Paso, Texas, and I grew up speaking English and Spanish at home, even though none of my family is the least bit Hispanic. (I also grew up white in cities like New Orleans, Baltimore, and Memphis, so in a sense I’ve been in the position of a local minority but national majority my entire life…) At this point in my life, I speak English, French, Spanish, and Arabic. It’s all right, though; with in-laws from the Middle East, I’ve gotten used to sweeping generalizations about my country of birth. Sigh.
newurbanshapes, French is more widely spoken in Louisiana than you might think: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Louisiana_parishes_by_French-speaking_population
It may not be Académie French, but I don’t consider it any more “bumpkin” than Acadian French, to which it’s very similar.
“Take away the comfort of having 300 millions english-speaking people to back you up”
What conspiracy? I was not talking about conspiracy. I only meant demographic pressure. The english language won’t vanish from Quebec for three reasons: 1) Except for some paranoid nationalist “bluenecks”, the great majority of Quebecers considers the english community as a plus for Quebec. 2) English is so present in our daily life and important internationally that it would be foolish to expect its disappearance. 3) Anyway, who will teach english to our children? Just kidding:)).
So, it has less to do with a so-called ” calculated agression” than with lazyness from our part. It is easier to blend in with the surrounding than make this extra little effort to keep our differences. This is more or less what has been going on in the french-canadian communities all around Canada (outside …).
Merci et bonne journee.
The good part is that “he is just visiting”…
My last comment was about this one from Marc:
“Nice job, Iggy. Way to piss off a huge chunk of the country.”
Don’t know why the reply doesn’t appear below the original comment.
Maybe this is related to the use of Firefox and/or Netvibes to read the posts.
No, that one’s my fault. Not sure if it’s WordPress or the theme I have installed, but replies don’t work for anyone but me (probably because I’m using a registered account). One of these days I’ll get around to fixing it.
No. The english were forced to have an empire, because their poor little island was soon stripped of ressources, forcing the british to get them overseas.
By comparison, France is a bountiful country, and having a colonial empire was not a question life-or-death. They had an empire, for sure, but it was just for copycat reasons, because it was fashionable. And they surely did not care as much about their empire as the british did; witness how readily they dumped North-America. Those who got North-America eventually got to (kinda) control the world.
And lastly, at the end of World War II, France and Britain were stripped of their empires. Without it’s empire, Britain was completely broke, bankrupt, despondent, while France went on into 30 solid years of unprecedented economic growth (the «trente glorieuses»); meanwhile, Britain had strict currency controls installed for 20 years after the war!
There is no restriction to english education if you are canadian. If you are or your parents are not of canadian origin, you have no business going to english school.
THIS IS JUST LIKE ANY OTHER GODDAMMED FUCKING NORMAL COUNTRY ON EARTH!!! NO COUNTRY IN THE WORLD ALLOWS PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHING IN ANOTHER LANGUAGE THAN THE MAJORITY’S!!!! WHY THE FUCK IS IT SO GODDAMMED FUCKING HARD FOR YOU BLOKES TO FUCKING UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE FUCKING ACTING LIKE EVERY OTHER GODDAMMED FUCKING SACRAMENT D’HOSTIE DE CALVAIRE DE TABARNAK DE CRISS COUNTRY ON THIS FUCKING PLANET????
WHY THE FUCK RHODESIAN ENGLISH WOULD GODDAMMED BE FUCKING SO SPECIAL SO NOT TO DO LIKE EVERYONE ELSE???
Do you understand now when you are told that you are no different from any run-of-the-mill western redneck???
The majority of people in Québec are french, so please explain why it is wrong to force a tiny minority to use the language of the majority.
So, if you are supposedly so concerned about the future of french, how are we supposed to protect it against the english (because the largest threat comes from english) without having active measures to ensure that immigrants think that they can live in english in Québec??? You can’t have your cake and eat it. Either you are truly concerned about french and understand that the overwhelming theat of english has to be curbed, or you really are not and only want to go back 40 years when french was definitely going to be eradicated.
This is outside the scope of this discussion. Lionel-Groulx’s purported “antisemitism” has been thoroughly debunked elsewhere. (Oh, you want to tackle me head on on this? I’m not afraid of doing so — the jews are not untouchable; they’re mean bitches who whine the loudest and they think that they can control everything, but that shall not deter he who has the solid facts behind him —, but I will not redo what I did. So go look elsewhere for what I said about that, read it, and then if you really think that you have arguments, come back and I’ll tear them to shreds).
It’s easy: just enclose the to-be-quoted-text with <blockquote> and </blockquote> tags. If you use Firefox, you will find this very helpful.
I knew some would… :) :) :) As it happens, I’ve been hanging around some pretty US right-wingos (in a totally unrelated domain, many people had problems with a given individual on the Internet, and of that bunch of people, I guess I was the only “lefto” – we helped each other out — the one who was the most helpful was the prototypical appalachian hillbilly, but a true southern gentleman), and I had to deal several americans during several heavy-machinery deals so I am more exposed to their views than to mainstream views; hence my perception that americans are scared of latinos.
AK-47? Wouldn’t that be a M-16??? :) :) :) :) :)
:)
“By comparison, France is a bountiful country, and having a colonial empire was not a question life-or-death. They had an empire, for sure, but it was just for copycat reasons, because it was fashionable. And they surely did not care as much about their empire as the british did; witness how readily they dumped North-America. Those who got North-America eventually got to (kinda) control the world.”
Are you serious? FASHIONABLE? They got into more than 3 world wars over being FASHIONABLE? I realize that fashion is important to the French, but you have to be kidding here. Spain was even more bountiful, so I guess the didn’t…oh…South America…cheap labor and free stolen gold…I see…
They dumped North America because rich white French nobles were making more money growing sugar on the backs of tortured Native and African slaves in the Caribbean.
They sure as hell didn’t give up West Africa without a fight—they massacred les tirailleur senegalais because they didn’t want to give up West Africa, they mass murdered vast groups of Southeast Asians to keep their empire intact…they invaded India in Pondicherry to try to seize the whole subcontinent (and by the way, domination of India was far more important to world domination anyway)…not to mention the French Quarter in Shanghai, French Guyana, Lebanon, the war crimes in Algeria, the islands of the South Pacific
As a white Quebecois, you have the Afrikaaner syndrome…if it happens to whitey, it is extra doubleplus bad, but WE never did anything bad to anyone because the ENGLISH did stuff that was 10% as bad to US!!
It’s childish thinking.
Now, I am no fan of the Canadian English superiority complex (it is laughable anyway, as an American, when Canadians complain about American domination and turn around and act ten times worse to the French all over their country) but damn you went totally delusional with that comment
I stand by by what I said.
The latter french massacres you describe are fully attributed to bourgeois government, who, by essence, are not french, but of anglo-saxon obedience.
Only people of anglo-saxon obedience believe that money is more important than anything else.
Could be – it is a sticky problem for translators. If you look carefully at the quote, l’argent: definite article, DES votes ethniques: indefinite article. Yes, both would normally get no article at all in English, but saying “some ethnic votes” renders the difference between the two better.
Remember that Parizeau’s wife of many years was a Polish writer. Parizeau has many faults but doesn’t hate immigrants.
I remember a Greek friend of mine deliberately voting Yes in the first referendum (1980) simply because she was so sick of the ignorant comments about Québec from her compatriots!
Nairmard,
You are so out of touch with reality and tend to contradict yourself many times.
Also, if you care to see where discrimination in Quebec is here is the UNESCO decision, is this implement in Quebec? I believe in Canada I can send my child to any school of my choice, I know, I did it. Not so here in Quebec. We need a liscense.
As for immigration, Quebec is the only province that controls 95% of their immigration, only refugee applications are handled by the Federal government. That combined with Bill 101, leave absolutely NO DOUBT in my mind the French language is not in danger.
Oh and prior to trying to argue that Canada is in violation of UNESCO’s recommendations, these recommendations are regarding QUEBEC. These decisions are implemented EVERYWHERE ELSE IN CANADA!
“In 1989 the premier of Quebec, Robert Bourassa, boasted that the Quebec government had “suspended fundamental liberties” by outlawing the use of English and other languages except French in most commercial advertising throughout Quebec, and by restricting entry to the English-language public school system in Quebec.
Canada ratified most of the world’s human rights treaties, which are international agreements that guarantee minimum standards for human civic, social and economic rights, educational rights and the protection of children. But Canada’s signature on these treaties is a hypocritical pretense because Quebec’s language laws ignore them.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Article 19
1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: (a) for the respect of the rights or reputations of others; (b) for the protection of national security or public order (ordre publique) or of public health or morals.
Article 50
The provisions of the present covenant shall extend to all parts of federal states without any limitations or exceptions.
The UN’s decision against Canada
“While the restrictions on outdoor advertising are indeed provided by law, the issue to be addressed is whether they are necessary for the respect of the rights of others. The rights of others could only be the rights of the francophone minority within Canada under article 27 [of the Covenant]. This is the right to use their own language, which is not jeopardized by the freedom of others to advertise in other than the French language. Nor does the Committee have reason to believe that public order would be jeopardized by commercial advertising outdoors in a language other than French… The Committee believes that it is not necessary, in order to protect the vulnerable position in Canada of the francophone group, to prohibit commercial advertising in English. This protection may be achieved in other ways that do not preclude the freedom of expression, in a language of their choice, of those engaged in such fields as trade. For example, the law could have required that advertising be in both French and English. A state may choose one or more official languages, but it may not exclude, outside the sphere of public life, the freedom to express oneself in a certain language. The committee accordingly concludes that there has been a violation of article 19, paragraph 2.”
But in Quebec, outdoor billboard advertising and public transit advertising is still prohibited in any language other than French. This violates both article 19(2) of the International Covenant and it also violates article 51, since the restriction applies only to Quebec. No other province restricts the language of commercial advertising. If you thought that freedom of expression was taken for granted in civilized countries you were wrong: free expression is suppressed in the Canadian Province of Quebec.
Access to English-language Education
UNESCO Convention/Recommendation against Discrimination in Education
Canada did not sign the Convention because education is a provincial jurisdiction and the provinces refused to allow Canada to sign the Convention on their behalf. Nevertheless, as a member of UNESCO, Canada is still bound by the Recommendation.
Section I (1)(c) of this convention prohibits discrimination in education:
1. For the purposes of this Recommendation, the term ‘discrimination’ includes any distinction, exclusion, limitation or preference which, being based on race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic condition or birth, has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing equality of treatment in education and in particular:
(c) Subject to the provisions of section II of this Recommendation, of establishing or maintaining separate educational systems or institutions for persons or groups of persons;
Section II
When permitted in a State, the following situations shall not be deemed to constitute discrimination, within the meaning of section I of this Recommendation:
(b) The establishment or maintenance, for religious or linguistic reasons, of separate educational systems or institutions offering an education which is in keeping with the wishes of the pupil’s parents or legal guardians, if participation in such systems or attendance at such institutions is optional [our italics] and if the education provided conforms to such standards as may be laid down or approved by the competent authorities, in particular for education of the same level;
When these sections are read together, the conclusion is inescapable. In the absence of choice, the establishment or maintenance, for linguistic reasons, of separate educational systems or institutions is discriminatory by definition.
Article 5 of this Covenant guarantees parents the right to establish private and/or religious schools that operate outside the state system.
Here are some paragraphs from Article 5 of this Covenant.
(c) It is essential to recognize the right of members of national minorities to carry on their own educational activities, including the maintenance of schools and, depending on the educational policy of each State, the use and teaching of their own language, provided however:
(i) That this right is not exercised in a manner which prevents the members of these minorities from understanding the culture and language of the community as a whole and from participating in its activities, or which prejudices national sovereignty;
(ii) That the standard of education is not lower than the general standard laid down or approved by the competent authorities; and
(iii) That attendance at such schools is optional.
The law in Quebec
The passages apply to Canada’s “national minority” of French Canadians, who comprise perhaps twenty-four percent of the total population. But Quebec’s language law violates this treaty.
In Quebec, children of French-speaking parents are prohibited from attending English schools. English-speaking immigrant children are forced into French-language schools. There is no option. The right to attend an English public school in Quebec is hereditary, being passed from parents to their children, and so down the generations, establishing a “blood line” of people raised in Quebec who are eligible to attend English schools in Quebec. This “blood line” excludes all children of French-speaking parents from anywhere in Canada or the rest of the world, and it excludes English-speaking immigrants to Quebec from anywhere else in the world.
If you thought that HEREDITARY privileges disappeared along with FEUDALISM, you were wrong: hereditary privileges live on in the Canadian Province of Quebec.”
ORLY?
You are grasping at straws. All your arguments are hollow, and are only indicating that you cannot stomach that you are no longer 40 years earlier when the english could bulldoze the french. You only want to go back when the english would not have to learn french.
Are there french schools in Red Deer, Alberta?
A “liscence” for what?
BZZZZT! STOP RIGHT HERE!
The keyword are “commercial advertising throughout Quebec”. This is something brought about by croporations, and croporations are not human and thus cannot be construed by any remote twist of reasonning to enjoy human rights.
I guess that pretty well ends the discussion right there.
Oh, and about education, well, are you implying that french education is less good than english education? If you could prove that, yes, there would be a case of discrimination, so please go ahead, demonstrate that french education is less good than english education.
Okay, who has had that right barred? Oh, yes, Ernst Zündel, who got jailed for saying that the shoah was bullshit… Did anyone got jailed for speaking english in Québec?
So? Where are there restrictions? Let’s recall that “everyone” means all humans, and croporations are **NOT** humans.
Ah, here is an interesting tid-bit. Restricting english commercial signs is a reasonable restriction on freedom of speech. The supreme court of Canada said so, and the UNESCO can agree too, because it’s for the protection of the national security of the french in Québec.
And no matter how you howl and whine and wail and bitch, it’s not going to change anything. Most people in Québec are perfectly happy with that, and in a democracy, that’s what all counts.
No. The UNESCO has no jurisdiction over the internal affairs of Canada, much less of Québec. You are still grasping at straws. The UNESCO can howl and bitch and moan, it will change nothing. Now what will the UNESCO do? Send-in the zouaves pontificaux???
Booh Hoo Gaaah. Why do you whine about US being prevented to go to english schools? Because you want the “good french-canadians who know their place in Canada” be able to turn their offspring into english? Why should we be concerned about people who want to become the ennemy? If they want to do so, they are perfectly welcome to go elsewhere in Canada and turn their kids into crumpet-eaters. But not here, and certainly not with our hard-earned tax dollars!!!
If you want to get rid of hereditary privilege, let’s also get rid of the king/queen thing, and of inheritance; whenever someone croaks up, all the estate should go to the State. Why? No? Talk about selective whining!!!
No, in reality, you’re jut one of those intolerant english bigots that do not want anything to do with the french, one of those dinosaurs that normally should have left 30 years ago.
Now, tell us, why should we give any attention to your desires? You certainly are not a desirable citizen because to please you, we would have to go back in time, undoing the tremenduous social progress done in the last half-century.
“Now, tell us, why should we give any attention to your desires? You certainly are not a desirable citizen because to please you, we would have to go back in time, undoing the tremenduous social progress done in the last half-century”
No, just be concerned about your minorities. I gotta tell you Jean, you could have easily been
recruited into Heinrich Himmlers’ outfit in the last war.
What social progress. Advancing one ethnic group at the expense of another is blatant discrimination just like your loi 101.
Your vision is so narrow that the blinders are now covering your eyes.
Your comparison of hispanics in the USA and francos in Quebec prove that you understand absolutely nothing of history. You’re quick to blame Quebecois for being allegedly racists. But your willingness to comment on a complex history that you obviously don’t comprehend is cavalier. I’m saying that to be nice, I mostly think it’s racist.
Like hell you are. You’re only concerned about them when they are prevented from becoming english.
Whoops, why I am responding to a Godwin® post???
Jean,
Combien de fois est-ce qu’il faut te répéter que la majorité des Anglophones au Québec sont bilingues avant que ça rentre dans ta petite tête. Je vois partout ou t’écris nous ne voulons pas parler ou apprendre le français. Ya t-il quelque chose que tu ne comprends pas? J’ai pensé peut-être que si je t’écris dans TA langue que tu comprendras. Nous ne sommes pas ceux ou celles qui veulent que la langue disparaitre, et tes propos sont ridicule. Je pense que tu vis toujours des années 1800. Nous sommes dans l’année 2009 mon homme, il faut s’évoluer un peu pour comprendre des choses.
Je pense le point que t&t à essayer de te faire t’as complètement manquer! Il/elle montrait qu’il existe aujourd’hui la discrimination au Québec. Corrige-toi sur le fait que les Anglophones veulent retourner dans le passé, c’est n’est pas juste complètement faux mais ça demontre l’insécurité de ton part.
De ce qui concerne les écoles françaises au Red Deer, oui, il y en a. En passant, il y en a partout au Canada! Et encore tu perds ta crédibilité.
http://education.alberta.ca/francais/parents/choice/lfrschools.aspx
De ce qui parle «de licence», je crois que c’est le Certificat d’éligibilité que quelqu’un Québécois doit posséder pour éduquer leurs enfants dans les écoles Anglaises.
Et tu as raison, il n’y avait aucun Anglais qui était emprisonner pour parler l’Anglais au Québec mais il y en a bien des commerces qui ont était pénaliser pour avoir l’affichage dans les DEUX langues à la même grandeur. Et il y a des Anglophones qui fréquent l’école française qui ont eu des punissions pour parler Anglais dans la cour pendant leurs récréation. Je peux constater que ça n’existe pas dans les écoles Anglaises au Québec, ni à travers le Canada. Si un enfant francophone parle français dans la cour pendant leur récréation il n’y a pas des conséquences.
Et pour ce qui est de votre « interesting tid-bit» la cour Suprême à trouver au début la loi 101 était anticonstitutionnel et ils ont fait des concessions, c’est pour ça qu’il reste le droit d’afficher l’anglais dans les commerces mais plus petit que le français. UNESCO peut approuver et c’est ça la démocratie.
UNESCO à fait des recommandations, ils ne plaindre pas mais le Québec parait pas bien si un moment donné le Québec deviens un pays qui veut un siège à UNESCO. De tout façon ces lois, si jamais Québec deviens un pays, serions appliqués au Québec car c’est ça la démocratie et il faut prendre soins des minorités dans un pays libre. Comme Canada le fait avec le Québec.
Avant de t’exprimer avec ton cœur. Assurez-vous des faits et de tes arguments. Je suggère que tu sors un peu de ta cave et vivre un peu car tu as trop de colère et hostilité. Tu verras que la vie n’est pas si pire! :)
La majorité des anglais au Canada ne veulent pas apprendre le français; ça se voit très bien par leur attitude. Même si tous les anglais du Québec ne seraient pas comme ça, ça n’y changera pas grand-chose. Parce qu’il faut considérer les anglais dans tout le Canada, car ceux du Québec ne se considèrent pas comme québécois (hormis une toute petite minorité).
Oui, justement, en 2009, nous ne devrions pas devoir protéger notre langue contre l’anglicisation des immigrants prônée par les anglais et le gouvernement fédéral. La loi 101 a pratiquement anéanti l’outil principal d’élimination du français (qui est l’anglicisation des immigrants) et 30 ans plus tard, les anglais n’en sont toujours pas revenus, et ils ne cessent de la décrier.
Qui ne serait pas insécurisé en étant entouré de 50 fois plus de gens qui dans le meilleur des cas se contrefoutent de vous? Parce que c’est notre situation, et seule une vigilance constante permettra de contrer toute tentative de minorisation.
Vous êtes anglaise, vous n’êtes pas menacée, donc vous ne pouvez pas comprendre celà.
Ça ne change rien au fait que l’Alberta gueule très fort contre le français.
Un commerce n’est pas humain, donc on ne peut parler de «droits de l’Homme» pour un commerce. Un commerce n’a pas plus le droit d’afficher en anglais que de faire de la publicité mensongère.
Une école d’immersion se devra d’avoir des règles plus strictes; les élèves qui s’y trouvent ont accepté de se conformer à ces règles, et si elles demandent une punition pour parler anglais, et bien c’est l’affaire de l’école.
Non. La démocratie, ce n’est pas de subjuguer la volonté de tout un peuple sous la botte d’une constitution écrite par un ennemi acharné du Québec; en France, par exemple, la volonté du peuple est explicitement au dessus de la constitution; c’est ainsi que l’élection du président de la République au suffrage universel a pu être adoptée par référendum, même si la notion était à la base anticonstitutionnelle.
C’est ça, la VRAIE démocratie: la volonté du peuple, pas celle d’un bout de papier.
Ha! Ha! Ha! Il y a des pays bien pires que le Québec en matière des droits de l’Homme qui siègent à l’Unesco.
Vous reprenez le refrain habituel des anglais anti-Québec qui chiâlent contre la loi 101 en disant qu’elle viole les droits de l’Homme, et bien évidemment, vous ne comprenez pas qu’il y a une distinction entre l’homme et son commerce parce que pour vous, le commerce est un élément essentiel de votre culture. Ce n’est pas le cas pour nous; le commerce est un mal nécéssaire qu’il faut encadrer le plus rigoureusement possible, afin d’éviter que le public se fasse fourrer, et le commerçant n’est pas digne de confiance.
Oui, le canada prend très bien soin de nous, avec des juges d’immigration qui disent carrément aux immigrants qu’ils doivent parler anglais au Québec (je l’ai personnellement vu — j’aurais bien jeté la juge par la fenêtre, mais j’ai eu peur de frapper quelqu’un avec).
Je ne fais que ça.
Je ne suis pas marié (now, that’s a very deeeeep one).
Line:
While I never agree with what Jean says, he’s right about UNESCO. Anything UNESCO says is just a suggestion – it has no official powers. You must not forget that UNESCO is an arm of the United Nations – one of the most useless bodies on the face of the Earth. The UN is a roundtable for totalitarian tin-pot nations ruled by barbarians. Remember they were the ones who put Qaddafi in charge of human rights.
And Muammar Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi (???????) is a “terrorist”! But it could be worse, they could have put there our great ally, Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud (???? ??????? ???????? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ????), king of Saudi Barbaria…