Wednesday, November 30, 2011

OQLF Campaign is Based On a Statistical Lie.

The current campaign to force English stores to adopt French names, as well as other coercive language initiatives are not really meant to raise the profile of the French language in Quebec, as we are assured by those promoting the new measures, but rather a program designed to make English invisible, giving renewed meaning to the old proverb "Out of Sight, Out of Mind"
In order to justify the assault on minority language rights and more recently on English signage specifically, the government has been manipulated by language extremists via scurrilous fear-mongering and phony and manipulated statistics.

Over the last couple of weeks I've tried to convey the message that statistics can be manoeuvred in the most egregious manner, spindled, twisted and interpreted to conform to any particular political view.

I don't put much stock in statistics offered by tobacco companies that tell us cigarettes aren't linked to cancer and I don't believe in statistics spouted by Pierre Curzi, Jack Jedwab, Mario Beaulieu, the L’Institut de recherche sur le français en Amérique or the B'nai Brith, who all have a particular axe to grind.
When it comes to interpreting statistical data, I'll stick to Statistics Canada and the Institut de la statistique du Québec, two government agencies dedicated to unbiased research.

The most fearful aspect of 'Statistication' is that the promulgator doesn't have to lie, and so cannot be easily exposed as a fraud. Instead subtle interpretations, twisted and manipulated treatments of data give a completely false impression of reality while the appearance of fairness is maintained.  Here is an illustrative example;

I don't know if you can read the explanation in little print under the graph, but the gist of it says that when you display a particular section of the graph (75%-100%) instead of the whole graph (0%-100%) a completely different perception evolves. Both graphs are true representations of reality, the one on the right giving the appearance that there's a large gap between the 'Our' brand, the 'Competitor's' brand and the 'Control' brand.
The graph on the left shows that the difference is actually slight.

One graph shows a slight difference, one graph a big difference, yet both are true.
One statistically correct and honest, the other statistically correct, but misleading.
This is the world of separatist statistics... deception.

By the way, I've actually seen the Journal de Montreal use the above device.

And so in Quebec we have been sold a bill of goods that says that the only data set that counts is the one that tells us that the province of Quebec is 80% French and 20% everything else. Like the deceptive graph above, the ratios are correct, but don't represent the true linguistic story.

If the 80/20 ratio played out in a general manner throughout Quebec, we would be inclined to accept it as a fair statistical base from which to make policy, but it isn't.

The 80/20 ratio does not play out on the island of Montreal, containing almost one third of the province's population.
In fact, of the 13% of Anglophones that live in Quebec, most live in the western neighbourhoods of Montreal, creating an enormous bubble.

In the town of Montreal West, the 80/20 ratio is actually reversed, where 80% of its citizens are English.
Policies and laws based on the preponderance of the French language in the province, have little relevancy here.
In fact, the entire western portion of the island of Montreal, is as far removed from this 80/20 data set as can be, with Anglos and English ethnics actually outnumbering French speakers.
In this part of Quebec, the majority doesn't rule.

Let's visit a mythical sports bar in Montreal West where 100 people have gathered to watch a hockey game. The bartender asks for a show of hands to determine whether the English or French language television broadcast should be shown on the big screen.
When asked who prefers the French language telecast, about 15 hands go up while about 80 hands go up for the English broadcast.

"Then it's settled" says the barkeeper, "We'll watch in French!"

Readers, this is Quebec..

While you may smile at the burlesque example above, most French-language militants will argue that it's completely reasonable, because French is the majority language of Quebec... and besides, it's threatened. (the old chestnut)

And so, because there is an overabundance of French-speakers in  Quebec City, Abitibi, the Saguenay and Monteregie regions, towns that have enormous English majorities in Montreal are forced to treat their majority language as second class.

Here's a list of the English percentage of selected Montreal towns.


The great campaign to impose French signs over English Montreal is an underhanded attempt by language militants to promote the fiction that in Quebec, French is in the majority everywhere.

Like a child covering her eyes and shouting,  "I can't see you,  I can't see you," language militants believe that by eliminating English signs, somehow the English won't be there.

The worst of it all is that they drape themselves in the cloth of righteous indignation, crusaders battling the scourge of the heathens, when in reality, they are nothing but ethnic cleansers, bound and determined to 'disappear' the English from Montreal.

Everyday, more people speak French in Quebec than the day before. The fiction that Quebec is in danger of losing its French is the mantra that is repeated daily to justify discrimination.
Demographers tell us that Quebec has long surpassed the critical threshold required to maintain its language and culture.

Portraying itself as a society under attack from foreign influence is the same device demagogues around the world have used to discriminate against minorities to sell an unpopular agenda.

Here in Quebec the tradition lives on, where the agenda is sovereignty and where the  English are the scapegoats.

By promoting the fiction that French is on the cusp of annihilation, all manner of restrictive and discriminatory practices can be justified and made more palatable to a public frightened by lies and misinformation.

Let me be as clear as possible.  Montreal is not a French city and never was, despite the propaganda.

Montreal is a bilingual English/French city and always was.

Great swaths of the island of Montreal are so English, aside from signs one would think they are in Ontario. This is the reality that militants want to obliterate.

Demanding that French signage be adopted in the Montreal on a superior basis, is a question of unfairly imposing ones will on another, because one can.


And so language militants, now with the blessing of the government, are hell bent on pursuing confrontation, hoping that it will be a positive step towards sovereingty.

But times have changed, Montreal Anglos are unafraid and when challenged will push back with a vengeance.

To French militants, I repeat what I warned my English brethren in my last post;

Be afraid, be very afraid.....

Friday: The Coming Language War.

101 comments:

  1. "And so, because there is an overabundance of French-speakers in Quebec City, Abitibi, the Saguenay and Monteregie regions, towns that have enormous English majorities in Montreal are forced to treat their majority language as second class."

    Editor, I really don't know what you're talking about here. These towns have bilingual status, people have the right to receive all services in English, most English schools are in that area, extremely easy to get health services in English and even some road signs are bilingual!! Bill 101 is not respected there and I'm very proud of that.

    Having said that, if these fascists want a war, it's what they're gonna get.

    ReplyDelete
  2. @Anon 12:34
    Bilingual city status does pertain to commercial signage. English still must be predominantly smaller in stores and outdoor advertising.

    ReplyDelete
  3. First of 2:

    First of all, how on Earth did this post above come on almost 37 hours before it was supposed to appear? Editor, are you into self-congratulatory propaganda?

    OK, so I'll live with not being the first post, so here we go...

    EDITOR, WHO'S KIDDING WHO HERE?

    First of all, dear readers, keep the following in mind:

    People...

    See what they WANT to see;
    Hear what they WANT to hear and
    Believe what they WANT to believe.

    Let's face it, this is the human condition.

    Editor, do you truly believe this supposed fanatical minority has fooled veteran politicians, political pundits and journalists with the incredible ease you are claiming in this post? REALLY?

    I don't believe it; moreover, I don't believe YOU believe it!

    There is no doubt the fascist fanatics à la MMF, SSJB, that Proulx guy et al don't let the truth get in the way of a good statistical lie.

    People...

    See what they WANT to see;
    Hear what they WANT to hear and
    Believe what they WANT to believe.

    I was writing on the previous post when my antique (well...vintage really) desktop computer rudely shut down and deleted my post, that we're going right back to the late 1970s when the Great Charter of Charters was brought into law.

    I recall the language police of the day harassing the smallest businesses, of course, over having one letter of one word in English on their cash register receipts and decreeing that invoices printed in English need not be paid.

    Here we are, 1/3 of a century later, and we're going right back to square one! Right back to where the ugliness began.

    Well, there's actually one exception here, one sickening exception: THIS time it's supposedly a so-called federalist party overtly promoting this rabid racist rhetoric--THE FEDERALIST PARTY! Worse yet, the likes of Weil, Kelley, James et all are just sitting with their thumbs up their rectum and letting it happen.

    If this was the Holocaust, they may as well be Jews heiping the executors putting the poisonous insecticide in the shower stalls and carrying the corpses to the crematoriums. Their own people are going to be facing this persecution and thus far they haven't uttered a sound, a syllable against these upcoming actions.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Second of 2:

    Editor, the other day on the previous post you said this is far from what the Holocaust was. Well, do recall that...

    The Holocaust STARTED with the legal election of the Nazi Party;

    The Holocaust STARTED with decrees by the legally elected Nazis against Jews and others whom they declared scapegoats and detractors of holding back the world superiority of Germans over their detractors and the rest of the world.

    Krastallnacht was a culmination of many years of rabid, overt racism against their worst scapegoat and perceived enemy, the Jews. The seeds of this hatred germinated through a bad seed planted by the White, Christian German-speaking population at least six years earlier. It was far from spontaneous!

    What you have now is almost 40 years of a small elite that has fed off the apples of the poisonous tree germinated by a bad seed and passing those apples to the general population that has wanted things the way they're going for all that time.

    The ebbs and tides of the past were through referendums (the tides), and the hangovers that resulted thereafter (the ebbs). You had the PQ being elected (tides) followed by PLQ governments (ebbs---REALLY?)

    What's new here, I hypothesize, is for the first time in an eternity, the so-called federalist government has been elected for the third consecutive time, and suddenly they're creating the tide. On the surface, that doesn't make sense. You'd think the federalists have gone senile.

    BUT NO! MAIS NON! They haven't gone senile!! The sleeping giant has awakened and [former Liberal MNA] Reed Scowen was right with what he wrote in Time to Say Goodbye: The [Francophone majority] population WANTS it this way!

    Face it my former fellow Anglophone expatriates: This is what THEY want, and we all know who THEY is! Deal with it!

    I did!

    ReplyDelete
  5. @ Mr Suga

    Mais qu'avez vous ajouté à vos Donuts ce matin?

    ReplyDelete
  6. N'ayez crainte Mr.Suga,notre armée n'est pas en mesure d'exterminer 350 000 000 d'anglophones.

    Et nous sommes toujours en attente de notre subvention fédérale pour la construction de notre usine de fours crématoires en Abitibi.

    Tout va bien Mr.Suga,allez,on respire par le nez

    ReplyDelete
  7. Editor, good post.

    I always had trouble with the selective demographics you allude to. They selectively add to the equation the 7 million French speakers in the north of Quebec (i.e. all the people who an average Montrealer, especially allo or anglo, may have nothing or little to do with), and they selectively subtract 350 million English speakers east, west, and south of here, even though many Montrealers actually have more to do with those people than the people up north. And all that because some arbitrary circle has been drawn on the map and called the jurisdiction of Quebec, whose official language has been arbitrarily proclaimed as French.

    But what is more important, the language proclaimed as official by a politically motivated bunch with political self-interest, or the language the people you encounter in your daily life actually speak?

    ReplyDelete
  8. "I always had trouble with the selective demographics you allude to..."

    Je crois que c'est simplement avec le Québec que vous avez un problème adski.Au lieu de vouloir changer les frontières,je crois qu'il serait plus sage pour vous de prendre la 401.Non?

    Si les restrictions linguistiques actuelles vous font chier,prévoyez une charge de travail supplémentaire pour vos intestins au cours des années à venir ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anon 12:34AM: "Editor, I really don't know what you're talking about here. These towns have bilingual status, people have the right to receive all services in English, most English schools are in that area, extremely easy to get health services in English and even some road signs are bilingual!! Bill 101 is not respected there and I'm very proud of that. "

    Just because Bill 101 is not respected there does not mean these towns have a bilingual status. They don't as far as I know. Every town in Quebec falls under Bill 101 and after 1993 English can be present but <<<--relegated to the back of the bus-->>> half the size (before 1993, it could not be present at all, even in towns with a "bilingual status"). So any rabble rousing militant can invade those towns with his cohort of crazies, draw media attention, and force OLF's hand.

    Saying what Anon 12:34AM said is like saying: what do you mean drunk driving is illegal, I just saw a drunk driver a minute ago.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Great post editor.

    I grew up in the west-island, and then later in life I moved to Trois-Rivières. So I've seen both linguistic realities of this province, first hand.

    I find it extremely frustrating that separatist politicians, who are supposed to be educated, exploit the people's ignorance by making them believe in some imaginary threat. It's now at a point where any separatist will defend racism without thinking twice, in the name of "protecting our culture". We've all seen it first hand in the comments on this blog. The way they think and the comments they make would be completely unacceptable anywhere else in North America.

    I personally know many people here in Trois-Rivières who don't know any anglophones (except me) or immigrants. And yet, they sure hate them! I could go on for hours with the things I've heard since I've been here, each of them more ridiculous than the last.

    "Je crois que c'est simplement avec le Québec que vous avez un problème adski.Au lieu de vouloir changer les frontières,je crois qu'il serait plus sage pour vous de prendre la 401.Non?"

    I think it's time for you to get out. A majority of people agreed with me 1980, again in 1995, once again during the last federal elections, and I'm sure support is continuously rising. It's too bad you have nowhere to go.

    We'll keep the intelligent people who are interested in moving forward, and trust me we'll have no problem protecting our languages (french and english), without any laws or racism.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "...and trust me we'll have no problem protecting our languages (french and english), without any laws or racism."

    Avant d'aller de l'avant avec vous,si vous permettez,expliquez-moi pourquoi la langue anglaise aurait besoin de protection.

    Deuxièmement,quel lien tordu existe-t-il entre le fait qu'une minorité linguistique représentant 2% en amérique du Nord,utilise des moyens légaux,afin de protéger sa culture, et le racisme.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "I personally know many people here in Trois-Rivières who don't know any anglophones (except me) or immigrants. And yet, they sure hate them!"

    Bien honnêtement,je crois que la réponse est contenue dans votre question.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Avant d'aller de l'avant avec vous,si vous permettez,expliquez-moi pourquoi la langue anglaise aurait besoin de protection."

    Because it's being targeted by laws and militancy in the province of Quebec.

    And if you say: you have the whole of North America, I'll say: you have France, and parts of Africa.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "A majority of people agreed with me 1980, again in 1995..."

    Je ne savais que la question référendaire portait sur la volonté d'angliciser ou pas le Québec.

    Les fédérastes sont vraiment tordus.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Because it's being targeted by laws and militancy in the province of Quebec."

    Avec ou sans raison?Voilà la question!

    ReplyDelete
  16. "I'll say: you have France, and parts of Africa"

    Vous avez un avantage:Vous pouvez le faire en voiture et parfois même à pieds ;-)

    Tandis que nous...

    ReplyDelete
  17. "Avec ou sans raison?Voilà la question!"

    Sure. The reason is ignorance, fear, and hate. It's as good a reason as any.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMoOuls0pcI&feature=related


    "Vous avez un avantage:Vous pouvez le faire en voiture et parfois même à pieds ;-)"

    Very, very thin argument. Not good enough to justify anything.

    ReplyDelete
  18. So, Editor, Montreal is not a french town and never was ?

    I suggest you review your history.

    The french founded the damn place, 1642. Inhabited it as the ruling majority until 1760. Still inhabited it, but as the conquered majority until 1831. So much for the town that was never french.

    Conquest doing its job, it became majority english in that year of 1831. It tipped back to majority french about 40 years later, in the 1860s, because of rural exodus. In 1902 it became majority english again for a short while, if I remember well. Has remained majority french since these early XXth century years, but with a significant english minority.

    Both English and French have been declining in Montréal since the 1970s. English because of the rise of Québécois nationalism, French because of exodus to the suburbs, leaving place for a new group to grow, the allophones, now around 35% of the island's population.

    Montréal is a french town under a state of chronic linguistic conflict, and it has been so for 251 years. It can't last forever. Eventually one of the two languages will win. Inevitable. I don't want to be the looser, and you don't either. So, que le meilleur gagne !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >Very interesting summary. Here is my thought: there were several large empires in the past 500 years but the British
      (English) and the French were very strong. There is a legacy here and it is that many of these former colonies are now independent countries. Anyone who can speak both languages can do very well in the world, both in business (note 1) and in the arts.
      >Here in Quebec and particularly in Montreal we have two strong languages and cultures, with English and French educational institutions to support this advantage. Instead of fighting we should develop this unique advantage giving our people access to a large segment of the world economies for business, arts, and new ideas in culture (see note 2).
      >My two children are fully fluent in both English and French. As an English educated resident of Montreal I entered my two children in French schools up to the end of high school. They then followed higher schooling in French and in English universities here in Montreal. They are doing just fine.
      >Note 1: there are many young and very well educated engineers at Bombardier right here in Montreal. There is a significant group that speaks only English and they told me that they are handicapped simply because the company operates around the world and they speak only on language, French.
      >Note 2: for proof that new cultures enhance Montreal note that there were many Czechs who came here after the revolution in that country. They were noted for their skill in design, especially graphic design, and this helped develop Montreal as a center of design. We never lose with new ideas from which we can select what suits us.

      Delete
  19. Alot of those bilingual towns like Dorval, Town of Mount Royal and Pointe Claire are not posting fully bilingual road signs anymore. Hampstead, Westmount and Cote Ste Luc are the towns know to make the effort.

    Also the French speaking % of the towns mentioned in the posts are actually shrinking. The allos for the most part are increasing their numbers, if asked what is their 1st official language in municipal related census question, English would be even more predominate. You also have alot of Boroughs of Montreal itself that are increasing the amount of Non French speakers. Just a few weeks ago I noticed areas of Cote Des Neiges near the Universite of Montreal Campus are now dominated by Anglos and Allos. St Michel, St Leonard, even parts of the plateau aside from Mile End (which I never thought would ever change demographically) are become more anglo and allo dominated.

    What the RPQ and MMF won't ever admit is they forced anglos to confine themselves to the Montreal Island and allophones settled in their traditional areas closer to anglophones in General. Also anglos also saw their economic evolution linked to English as they were able to find employment more often in English dominated companies and industries. The Quebec civil service and para public organizations are perfect example of how allos and anglos are excluded from most jobs despite knowing French. I mean how can you deny the majority allo and anglo population graduating from the CDSM schools don't know French?

    ReplyDelete
  20. @anon 11:29

    Yes, though the English speaking numbers are still growing in the Montreal area despite bill 101 and all the efforts to completely francicize Montreal. In my elementary and high school social studies subject books, the Quebec government was scared in the 1970s that Montreal would be a anglophone city by the year 2000. Based on the Francophone minority in 2006, this may still happen by 2016. The demographics are changing rapidly.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "Avant d'aller de l'avant avec vous,si vous permettez,expliquez-moi pourquoi la langue anglaise aurait besoin de protection."

    It doesn't, just like any other language (or religion for that matter).

    "Deuxièmement,quel lien tordu existe-t-il entre le fait qu'une minorité linguistique représentant 2% en amérique du Nord,utilise des moyens légaux,afin de protéger sa culture, et le racisme."

    Your laws don't protect french, they oppress people who use other languages. They didn't hire 26 new french-promoters, they hired 26 new language police. Most french québécois don't even respect their own language, so don't give me that crap.. "Tsé yo man check loft story c'est full hot!"

    "Bien honnêtement,je crois que la réponse est contenue dans votre question."

    I realize the education system is deficient in this province, but there was no question in my sentence. It was a statement, not a question. A question generally ends with a question mark.

    "Je ne savais que la question référendaire portait sur la volonté d'angliciser ou pas le Québec."

    If you can give me another reason why you want to separate, go ahead, I'll be waiting. There were valid reasons for separation in the past, now the only separatists left are frustrated little racist people, and it's all about language. Go read vigile.net (which I'm sure you do regularly)
    But of course I don't expect a separatist to be honest about his convictions.

    ReplyDelete
  22. To Anon 11:29am,   I'm an allophone Montrealer, born and raised. I was forced to go to French school because of 101. My kids go to English private school because of that law (I'm unable to send them to the English public school my wife teaches at). I can tell you this, if immigrants had a choice, they would want NOTHING to do with your backward ass Québécois culture and language. I make a point of hardly ever speaking French because I resent it (thanks Bill 101). I work in English, shop in English, live in English right here in my city Montreal. Montreal is a bilingual city, NOT a French city. It hasn't been a French city in anyone's lifetime. If it were, it would still be a God damn village like Trios Rivière.  Let's take a vote of all the people living on the Island. Let's ask them if they want to maintain this charade that Montreal has a French only face or if they prefer Montreal to be a language law free zone, where all languages are permitted to be seen and spoken. I can guarantee you that we would clobber your side. 

    ReplyDelete
  23. "I can tell you this, if immigrants had a choice, they would want NOTHING to do with your backward ass Québécois culture and language..."

    Et vous croyez que nous ne le savions pas?

    Nous vérifions chacun des containers en provenance des pays sous-développés afin d'en vérifier la qualité du contenu.

    Malheureusement quelques éléments avariés nous échappent parfois. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  24. (It amuses me that I've been dubbed "Calgary Anonymous in the previous thread, so I'll continue it here)

    @Anon 12:19 : Your story seems to confirm that Bill 101 is a necessity in order to have immigrants learn the langauge of the majority of the province of Quebec.

    By the way - the converse is also true. An allophone immigrating to Ontario is forced to enroll his children in the english public system rather than the french (though he could qualify for immersion I guess). The difference is that no one wants to enroll their children in french schools anyway ; for that reason people have the impression that the setup in Quebec is different from the rest of Canada's.

    As for the actual article - I was confused. It was not obvious to me whether you were saying that Montreal-West were to receive unilingual french signs, or billingual signs. I assume the latter, but the following isn't really relevant if it's the former (in which case I agree with you wholeheartedly, minus the moral commentary).


    I've never met a Quebecker (though granted I've met only a few of them that I actually had meaningful conversations with) that would deny that Montreal is "une ville anglaise". I'm not sure what that has to do with signeage, though. Here in Alberta we have a few francophone communities that have billingual signs. I'm sure people would complain if those signs were exclusively french, however, since the majority of the province is english and is entitled to being able to understand governmental/public signs even in francophone enclaves.

    In fact, I believe it is actually illegal to have road signs in any of the english provinces that do not have english text on them.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "NOT a French city..."

    Pourtant à peu près tout est affiché en Français et aux dernières nouvelles,elle le sera d'avantage dans les années à venir.Ça doit être étrange pour un anglo(d'adoption) de vivre dans une ville avec un visage francophone.

    Vous devez vous sentir exclus.

    ReplyDelete
  26. @anon 1:23

    Its not the anglos and allos that are overrepresented on Bien etre sociale (welfare) roles.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "If you can give me another reason why you want to separate, go ahead, I'll be waiting."

    Faites un sondage sur cette question précise,pas un référendum,un simple sondage et je crois que vous serez fort déçu du résultat.

    Pourquoi Charest (imaginez J.J Charest qui s'intéresse à la langue d'usage) revient devant les médias avec la question linguistique?

    Un peu de pression peut-être?

    "I realize the education system is deficient in this province, but there was no question in my sentence. It was a statement, not a question. A question generally ends with a question mark"

    Désolé,J'ai fait un transfert.Si je me retrouvais dans une telle situation,hé bien MOI,je me poserais la question.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "Its not the anglos and allos that are overrepresented on Bien etre sociale (welfare) roles."

    Vous ne travaillez pas cet après-midi?Allez!Retournez au boulot.je veux mon chèque le mois prochain.

    ReplyDelete
  29. @Calgary anonymus

    Je vous trouve vraiment sympathique.Grâce à vous je crois que Calgary pourrait devenir,pour ma famille et moi,un endroit à visiter.

    Je prendrais quand même le soin de dissimuler ma plaque du Québec.

    ReplyDelete
  30. "Je prendrais quand même le soin de dissimuler ma plaque du Québec."

    Paranoia much?

    ReplyDelete
  31. @Anonymous 2:10

    Calgary is the ultimate expression of the urban sprawl, perfect for assholes who live their life in a car, with no pedestrian access and sub-par public transit. It has zero touristic attractions other than the CN tower rip-off or the customary generic museums; its only touristic merit is that it's close to the Rocky Mountains.

    I'd avoid Banff, it is hyper-commercialized "Hey honey, let's go shop at the Gap here in the rockies! Then we can get some Starbucks with a gorgeous backdrop." I'd suggest flying to Edmonton and making the longer drive to Jasper, it's much more pristine and has a much less tacky feel to it. There's lake louise in between the two, but I haven't been there myself.

    I quite enjoyed Vancouver and Victoria, however. You'd be surprised at how much french you'll hear in Vancouver, I was astounded. Many tourists from France and Quebec seem to go there. The only other place I heard as much french outside Quebec was Ottawa.

    ReplyDelete
  32. @Anonymus(Le séparatiste qui cherche la merde la)
    La langue de la majoritée a montréal, c'est l'anglais. Pis si tu me dit que au québec c'est le Francais, bin je réplique qu'au Canada c'est l'anglais, pis toi tu vas me dire que en amérique c'est l'espagnol pis moi ma te dire que dans le monde c'est le Chinois. Who give a fuck? Sérieusement. J'habite a hull, j'ai un paquet d'amis a Ottawa et a prescot-russel. Je connais des gens de Hawkesburry, the Hearst, Sudburry et windsor. Fait: Ils ont été a l'école en Francais. Fait: Ils ont une signalisation routière, en ontario, bilingue. Fait: Ils aiment pas les séparatistes. Fait: Quand ils sont arrivé au québec, ils se sont tellement sentis rejetté qu'ils se sont joint a la comunauté anglophone et ont, pour plusieurs d'entre eux, perdu leur Français(Mais toujours capable de le comprendre). En Ontario, il y as 60 ans, on enseignait le Français comme au Québec: Un coup de strappe sur les doigts quand on te pogne a parlé Français. Aujourd'hui, on permet aux jeune de parlé entre eux en angalais. Dans les Collège et unmiversitée Francophones, on leur laisse même remettre leurs traveaux en anglais. Qu'on-ils découvert? Plus de jeunes gardent leur Francais comme sa! Ils ne se sentent plus exclus ou isolé, ni contraint. Ils sont de fier ontariens Francophones. Ils ont leur expression (mais ils en ont beaucoup en commun avec nous)et envoient leurs enfants a l'école en Francais. Alors, pourquoi on ne vois pas la même chose au québec pour les Anglophone, pourquoi de plus en plus de Francophone(comme moi), prépare leur bagages, disent "Fuck les séparatistes et god save the queen" avant d'allé vivre en Ontario? Parce qu'ils en ont plein le cul de l'intolérences, du complex d'inferioritée et des autres niaiseries. Le Québec a 20% de non-francophone. C'est une diminution de l'anglais, pas une augmentation. C'est aussi bien assé pour être une province bilingue. En ontario, il y as une lois, qui se nomme, la lois sur les sevices en Francais. Ce qu'elle dit? L'ontario est bilinge partout ou il y as un nombre suffisent de Francophone pour que sa en vaux le trouble. Ca fait en sorte que les nom des ministère et organismes est traduits en Français, que les services sont dispensé en Français, que les député a l'assemblée législatives parle Français, que les partis provinciaux(Sauf les conservateurs, qui ne sont pas au pouvoir pour une bonne raison) sont bilingues. Quand je suis sur l'autoroute, tout est en Anglais et en Français. Même la signalisation pour le construction! Pis tu sais quoi? On vas pas faire chier les francophones la-bas parce que leurs affichage commercial est bilingue avec le francais qui est pas 3 fois plus ptis. Le problème, c'est que vous manqué de laissé vivre. La ou les anglophones sont majoritaire, que se soit dans un quartier, une ville ou une province, ya pas de raison d'imposé juste le français ou le Français d'abord. Pensons a prescott-russel, circonscription a majorité francophone a l'ouest de la rivière des Outaouais. La lois locale force tout les nouveau affichages commerciaux a être en anglais et en français. Ça c'est raisonnable et respectueux. Vivement le jour où les gens du Québec auront comprit la leçons de tolérance des gens de Prescott-Russel

    ReplyDelete
  33. @Anonymus Calgary

    Je vois.Vous ne travaillez pas au sein du bureau touristique de Calgary.Merci pour les précieux conseils.J'imagine que coté gastronomie...

    Nous arrêterons tout de même pour faire le plein...de pétrole.

    Vous êtes le bienvenu au Québec Calgary guy!

    ReplyDelete
  34. "...aux jeune de parlé entre eux en angalais..."

    Est-ce un dialecte de l'Angola?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Editor, are you secretly the anonymous franco douchebag antagonizing your readers in order to make your site more entertaining? Cuz if that's the case, its working!!!

    ReplyDelete
  36. "I quite enjoyed Vancouver and Victoria, however. You'd be surprised at how much french you'll hear in Vancouver, I was astounded."

    Would appear not at the Winter Olympics. Quite a stir amongst the language zealots regarding the lack of French at the opening cermonies. The usual bunch of idiots who expound the virtures of a dieing language which have cost this country 100s of billions of dollars. . Fraser, Yves Godin, Charest, etc etc etc.

    ReplyDelete
  37. @Anonymous 2:40

    Here in Calgary we have a fantastic selection of chain restaurants - Boston Pizza, Chilis, Red Grille, Mongolie Grill, etc.

    If I compare with my previous home in Hamilton, ON, the food is about twice as expensive and half the quality. We might be one of the top destination for new immigrants (After Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver) but for some reason these immigrants don't seem to be opening small family-owned restaurants like I was used to seeing in Ontario.

    We do have some good indian food places - especially in edmonton. But, it's also priced more than the same food would have been in Ontario.

    I shoudn't be to hard ; I've had much better access to musicals and plays here than Ontario, paradoxically. The big ontarian theatres seem to keep a show for two years at a time so if it's not something you want to see.. tough luck! The Citadel theatre in Edmonton, however, changes production every month, and as far as I can tell the value is excellent. Especially the Edmonton-based Catalyst theatre that perform dark, gothic and highly stylicized plays that they write themselves. I've watched their "Edgar Allan Poe" as well as "The Hunchback of Notre-Dame" - one of the best adaptation I've ever seen, actually, on-par with "Notre-Dame de Paris" which I had the pleasure of seeing in Montreal in the beginning of the decade.

    ReplyDelete
  38. "Would appear not at the Winter Olympics. Quite a stir amongst the language zealots regarding the lack of French at the opening cermonies. The usual bunch of idiots who expound the virtures of a dieing language which have cost this country 100s of billions of dollars. . Fraser, Yves Godin, Charest, etc etc etc."

    It is customary to use french in the olympic games in honor of the man who brought them back a century ago. I believe the tradition has it that French is used first, then english, then the local language. And this even in a place like Japan. It's kind of embarassing, really, if our country which is supposedly billingual is incapable of incorporating a suitable level of french in the opening ceremony. I blame it on the conservative administration, the Liberals usually tend to pay more attention to these kind of details.

    I also read that they hadn't bothered asking the composer of "Gens du pays" for the right to use his song, so were stuck without an alternative when he refused (which is of course his right, even if some might call that move dickish).

    ReplyDelete
  39. Who doesn't agree that two languages are better than one? Who doesn't agree that Montreal would do far better economically, culturally, and sociologically if it were an officially bilingual city free of language laws?

    ReplyDelete
  40. "We do have some good indian food places..."

    Intéressant.Les restos Indiens sont des endroits ou on est presque certains de toujours bien manger.

    Par contre,le Mongolie Grill me fait un peu peur.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Calgary Anon said: "@Anon 12:19 : Your story seems to confirm that Bill 101 is a necessity in order to have immigrants learn the langauge of the majority of the province of Quebec."


    Anon 12:19 said that he went to a French school, so he must speak French, like most allophones. That he isn't loyal to the language he learned is another story.

    But isn't it interesting that there are people in this province who would spend their hard-earned money to get their kids out of the system of the majority? Do you know any immigrants in Calgary who so desperately desire to get out of the English school system? Is there any concern in Calgary about such cross-language transfers?

    Sure, the political power is wielded by nationalists in Quebec (PLQ, PQ, maybe CAQ later on), so Quebec has the "right" to do what it wants to do to deal with the "problem" (a right meaning the power to implement it, as anywhere else). But isn't it sad that Quebec has to resort to this? What does it say about its majority? The proud majority speaking the proud langue de Moliere reduced to this, paying immigrants to take French (COFI), fighting for every single kid not to transfer to the minority side, embarrassing itself with the language police and pathetic demonstrations downtown. Isn't it humiliating? And don't you see how such desperation and insecurity actually pushes people away? Or indicates that, although numerically a majority, economically or culturally it may not be such an attractive demographic group for others?

    ReplyDelete
  42. @LordDorchester: I agree with you 100% (I am the dude who postes the stuff in french that slam separatists)

    ReplyDelete
  43. "I am the dude who postes the stuff in french that slam separatists"

    Ha?C'était donc du français?Alors pourquoi je n'ai rien saisi de votre propos?

    Hmmmm...Espérons que les anglophones de ce blogue comprendront votre anglais

    ReplyDelete
  44. @Anonymous 3:24 PM

    I was refering to this statement : "I can tell you this, if immigrants had a choice, they would want NOTHING to do with your backward ass Québécois culture and language..."

    If, say, it was immigrants who wanted to immigrate in Ontario and "want NOTHING to do with [their] backward ass [...] culture and language", people would be upset. It's not a problem anywhere else in Canada, of course.

    "Is there any concern in Calgary about such cross-language transfers?"

    Our schools offers some programs in other languages, actually. I remember Ukrainian and Mandarin specifically. We can afford to do that, because we very well know that everyone will learn english anyway. I don't know too much about it - I'm just aware that there are such programs.

    In contrast, the poster I quoted would most likely not have learned french had he not been sent to a french public school ; he would have become a unilingual english to whom the majority of the province would have to cater rather than the other way around. Personally I see nothing wrong with having immigrants schooled in the language of the majority - it is also the law in english canada.

    The tendency of a community to use legislation to make sure immigrants know the language is proportional to the probability that immigrants can come in and get by without said language. English has an unparalleled hegemoneous position in the world ; it is exceedingly rare that any other language has a chance of comming in and displacing it. When it does happen, such as in some communities in the southern US with lots of hispanic immigrants, the inhabitants abandon aversion to legislating language.

    Google "English only USA" and such, you should see attempts/succesfully passed legislation. None of them go as far as Bill 101, or are exactly the same, of course, but they do exist. Mostly, they prevent the government from providing spanish services/litterature to people and make it the law to insure children are educated in english, and as fast as possible.

    ReplyDelete
  45. "Who doesn't agree that two languages are better than one? Who doesn't agree that Montreal would do far better economically, culturally, and sociologically if it were an officially bilingual city free of language laws?"

    I don't, personally. I agree Montreal should be a billingual city : the numbers certainly warrant it. I just point out logical and factual fallacies expressed by the editor and various commenters in favour of this point.

    ReplyDelete
  46. @Anonymous Calgary

    Merci encore pour votre appuie!

    "I can tell you this, if immigrants had a choice, they would want NOTHING to do with your backward ass Québécois culture and language..."

    Ne vous en faites pas,nous avons l'habitude avec ce genre de mépris.Heureusement,nous savons fort bien que ce genre d'individu ne représente pas la majorité des allos/anglos mais seulement un faible pourcentage de frustrés.

    ReplyDelete
  47. @anon 4:36

    Not really it does represent a large percentage of anglos and a growing majority of Allos.

    ReplyDelete
  48. @calgary anon,

    Actually you represent more of devils advocate then somebody who points out logical or any other factual fallacies. Your knowledge on Quebec political history like that of most people in the rest of Canada is pretty limited.

    The liberal party of Quebec in 1974 declared Quebec French Only. They had no referendum or exceptions for English majority areas. Then in 1977 they made bill 101, which was more severe then the 1974 Liberal party of Quebec bill 22. Even for bill 101 to become law in Quebec they had to have an english version of the law to actually make bill 101 legal. So much for Quebec "being" an officially French province.

    In the end us anglos and allos will have to partition Quebec and take our rights back.

    ReplyDelete
  49. "Not really it does represent a large percentage of anglos and a growing majority of Allos."

    Pourquoi croyez-vous que nous allons diminuer l'immigration et redonner des dents à nos lois?

    Je suis vraiment désolé.

    ReplyDelete
  50. "In the end us anglos and allos will have to partition Quebec and take our rights back."

    Quel parti politique vous représente déjà?

    ReplyDelete
  51. Calgary Anonymous, you seem to be avoiding my questions.

    I didn't ask you if there exist other-language schools in Alberta, I asked you if there is a concern about them?

    I didn't ask you if there is something wrong with schooling kids in the language of the majority, I told you that every jurisdiction has that "right" to do this, as rights are always synonymous with power.

    What I did ask you is if you don't think that the linguistic desperation, doom and gloom of Quebec are humiliating for the francophones and demeaning to their culture? As a francophile (if not a francophone), it must pain you to no end to watch this circus unfold, yes or no?

    Your second to last paragraph also dodges my question, but at least you hit the nail on the head when you say: "The tendency of a community to use legislation to make sure immigrants know the language is proportional to the probability that immigrants can come in and get by without said language"...Very true, but doesn't it logically follow from this that if immigrants are able to get by without the language of the majority, the majority loses its legitimacy to a certain extent, and loses its soft-power capability, the power of persuasion, and can only resort to hard power of coercion, which IN THE LEAST is unattractive and repugnant, and quite often impractical and unsuccessful, as Quebec's case illustrates? Doesn't it also mean that a point may have been reached where the majority might have to reconsider its position, and maybe open itself up to that other linguistic alternative, which, even though it is numerically minoritarian, musters enough popularity, influence, and soft power that it might not make much sense to try to oppose it, especially given the fact that the opposing has been going on for almost 40 years?

    About anti-Spanish initiatives in the US:

    1. I don't like them one bit.
    2. I'm glad that they rarely get passed into law, or reach a beyond-local scope. Unless you have some examples that prove otherwise. Let me know.

    ReplyDelete
  52. "...which IN THE LEAST is unattractive and repugnant, and quite often impractical and unsuccessful..."

    Alors que font-ils ici?

    ReplyDelete
  53. Calgary Anon, another thing about the Spanish language in the US - the US is much more open to Spanish than Quebec to English. In between occasional anti-Spanish initiatives we have bilingual signs, bilingual labels, bilingual instruction boards, no language police, and even bilingual ELECTION BALLOTS in Hispanic areas in Texas, California, Florida, and even Massachusetts:

    http://www.globalization-group.com/edge/2010/11/elections-won-and-lost-in-translation/

    Have Quebec beat that before you start making comparisons.

    And note that this is in the US which neighbors a total of over 350 million Spanish-speakers to the south of its borders, and many millions with its borders.

    Yet they don't use that excuse to enact their nationwide version of Bill 101 in Washington. Why not?

    As I told you the other day - linguistic geopolitics do not account for everything in Quebec. "7 million in the sea of 350 million" is just a cop out. What plays a major role is a historical resentment, envy, and hostility. And that's what you're defending on this board.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Let me appologize in advance, I don't actually try to dodge the question; I'm discussing them as frankly as I understand them to be.

    Is there a concern? Not that I can see, no. But! Why should there be, since immigrants here integrate easily?

    "What I did ask you is if you don't think that the linguistic desperation, doom and gloom of Quebec are humiliating for the francophones and demeaning to their culture? As a francophile (if not a francophone), it must pain you to no end to watch this circus unfold, yes or no?"

    Erm... well, I don't agree with nearly all of it. For instance, I think the "french needs to be bigger" is awful. I'd think it be reasonable to have an "equal size" to prevent someone from dicking around and making microscopital "billingual signs" to circumvent the law. But, I don't think that Quebeckers taking language seriously is necessarily demeaning to their culture, no.

    As to the next paragraph
    -I agree that the majority loses some of its legitimacy, and its soft-power capability, and that coercion is unattractive.
    -I disagree that the attempt was unsuccessful, as now in Quebec (as others have been able to point out to me) one can get french service quite handily with only Montreal and it's complex demographics that could *maybe* be different in a generation or two.

    Anti-spanish initiatives in the US

    -I don't like them much better. They are different from the Bill 101 - bill 101 does not ban teaching in english, or make it illegal for a public servant to serve someone in english which is the case for these laws (with the exception of police work or medical emergencies). In a lot of ways, they are not as extreme as Bill 101 (no laws on public signeage/"right to work") but they just seem much more *restrictive*.

    The way I see it, Bill 101 sets a minimum bar - "you must be able to serve people in french in your business and advertise at least in french, plus anything else". It's like, French + whatever you fancy.

    The anti-spanish initiatives, however, seem to set a *maximum* bar - "you must NOT serve people in spanish if you are a government official", "you must NOT provide citizens with official government text in anything but english". It's like, English-Only.

    ReplyDelete
  55. "2. I'm glad that they rarely get passed into law, or reach a beyond-local scope. Unless you have some examples that prove otherwise. Let me know."

    What's local? all these laws I'm talking about are state laws. I'm going to provide you with some examples, but really if you're interested you should look into it yourself. Too often I find that when I go out of my way to provide an example for topic A, people shift and argue point B. We are talking about "laws that are beyond-local" which I will take to be "beyond municipal, up to and including state"

    http://www.us-english.org/view/8 documents all of it very well. These are the moderates, from their "about" section and their faq they seem to want to legislate "english +" as well.

    For instance, here is the Arizona one. http://www.us-english.org/view/339

    Essentially, it is illegal for public workers to provide services in anything but english, except a whole bunch of exceptions, some of which are federal services (since those depend on federal laws), if it's an emergency, if it's a teacher or an organisation promoting a second language, if it's informal (the clerk can explain to the mexican immigrant what the form means, but the form *must* be in english), stuff related to tourism, etc...

    The original "unconstitutional" legislation was more restrictive ; it had less exceptions, but it's not substantially different.

    I breezed through a few other states, and they seemed similar. The one for Ohio, for instance, was almost identical; I did see that there's a provision that public workers are allowed to communicate in non-english if they find it "necessary or desireable to do so". I'm not very fluent in legalese, so I don't know how that part doesen't invalidate the rest of it, but there certainly is a law.

    Currently there is no federal-wide law pertaining to english.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Anon at 5:07 and 4:54

    Are you adski or some random "Canadian Anon"??

    You use the pronoun "We" as if you're American, then you use "They" when talking about Americans.


    Interesting...

    ReplyDelete
  57. Finally, something substantial from Calgary Anon.

    Arizona's proposition 103. After reading it, I have two things to say about it:

    1. It is a step in a wrong direction, and a result of an anti-Hispanic sentiment and hate disguised as "concern" for English
    2. Not as far reaching as 101 by any stretch. 103 limits itself to law and government (which I have no problem with even for 101), 101 goes into communication, work, or commerce (103 mentions business once, as to say that any resident or businessman who witnesses a violation of 103 (presumably within government) may file a suit). 101 has a sign law provision that banned English completely from public space (until 1993) and then relegated it to the back of the bus (half size) ONLY after a UN condemnation. 103 does not create a language police either to enforce itself, 101 does.


    What's local? Say a California school board directive regarding the use of English vs.Spanish, applicable ONLY in that school district, but often cited by 101 apologists. Arizona's 103 is state wide, so here we can compare.

    Re: the Ohio legislation - let me see a link.

    Where you say "I don't like them much better", you sound very hypocritical. You support the Quebec language legislation, but you don't like the American one (whereas I don't like either of the two.)

    Where you say: "think the "For instance, I think the "french needs to be bigger" is awful" you sound inconsistent. How can you defend Quebec language policy when its main point is the sign provision? If you support 101, you also support the "french needs to be bigger" stuff. If you don't support the "french needs to be bigger" bit, then you don't support 101.

    Where you say: "But, I don't think that Quebeckers taking language seriously is necessarily demeaning to their culture, no.", I have a hard time to believe it. If French were my mother tongue or if I were a francophile, I'd be ashamed and embarrassed by what some people are doing on behalf of this poor language.

    ReplyDelete
  58. I did agree that it wasn't bill 101. All I said is "increasing number of immigrants who manage to get by without learning the local langauge makes people vote in langauge legislation." That's it, that's all.

    Re: the Ohio legislation - you can access it on that website. If you care about it, you can figure out in a few clicks. It's not my job to ferry out links for you that you discard and tell me "look for more!"

    As to being hypocritical - I never said Bill 101 made me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. There are some provisions of it (the sign law for instance) that I don't like at all. If I had been in charge, I would have mandated that french needed to be present and at least of equal size - and left everything else up to the individuals. I would be in favor (though it's moot because we have no real need of it) of something like that in english Canada for, say, mandarin restaurant menus and ads.

    I guess my problems with 101 are a matter of scale, and not of principle. The education bit was eventually made moot by the chart of rights and freedoms that gave the rest of canada bill 101-like constitutional rights to education for french minorities, though the details are slightly different - there are no rights for "historic" (ethnic) minorities for francophones in english Canada.

    I'm also iffy on the right to work in french - I can see how it'd be ridiculous to have one english manager insist all the workers communicate between themselves in english even if they're all francophones, but the converse of one francophone forcing every anglophone to work in french seems also true to me. I haven't decided what I think about that yet.

    As for the last paragraph, I don't think about the same way that you do. We can agree to disagree, yes?

    ReplyDelete
  59. @Éditeur

    Ne comptez pas sur ma présence au cours des prochains jours car je dois ressusciter 3 autres blogues en perte de vitesse et qui sont sur le point de perdre certains commanditaires.

    Je vous ferez parvenir ma facture sous peu ainsi que mes coordonnées afin que votre chèque soit bien acheminé.

    Ce fut un plaisir de traiter avec vous!

    ReplyDelete
  60. "Faites un sondage sur cette question précise,pas un référendum,un simple sondage et je crois que vous serez fort déçu du résultat."

    Indeed, I might be surprised by the results. You might too, who knows. My experience and instinct tells me that today, a fairly large majority would be against separation. But I'm sure you'll disagree, so I guess we'll have to leave it at that.
    The question would have to be clear though, and I mean actual separation. I say this because I'm certain that most Québécois would agree with having more provincial power, while remaining in Canada. I know I would. You might want to automatically label us all as "federalists", but that's not true, some of us are just against the idea of separation.

    But that wasn't my question, I'm interested in knowing your reasons for wanting to leave Canada. I want to know how you think things would improve. For some reason, I can never get a straight answer to that question. I always get a reply that sounds like "on peut pas avancer tant qu'on fera partie de ce pays." Ok, but why?

    "Ne comptez pas sur ma présence au cours des prochains jours car je dois ressusciter 3 autres blogues en perte de vitesse et qui sont sur le point de perdre certains commanditaires."

    Don't you mean that you're getting your welfare check tomorrow and you'll be too busy drinking beer over the next few days? :P (just kidding)

    ReplyDelete
  61. ""Faites un sondage sur cette question précise,pas un référendum,un simple sondage et je crois que vous serez fort déçu du résultat.""

    In a poll, Quebeckers tend to overstate their support to separation. They know that poll results are public, and it's a good way to keep the federal government on its toes.

    In an actual referendum, it's you who would be sorely disappointed. Scores of those who say Yes in polls would say no is a vote. They'd think with their wallets and their futures, and these are much more secure when you have the mommy Ottawa to spot you a few billion a year, and a passport that lets you go to BC or Ontario when shit hits a the fan in your own province.

    ReplyDelete
  62. ""Faites un sondage sur cette question précise,pas un référendum,un simple sondage et je crois que vous serez fort déçu du résultat.""

    Je ne faisais pas illusion à un sondage sur la question de la souveraineté mais sur le maintient et/ou le renforcement de la loi 101.

    ":P (just kidding)"

    I know,i know...

    "But that wasn't my question, I'm interested in knowing your reasons for wanting to leave Canada."

    Pour enfin laisser vivre les Canadiens anglais comme bon leur semble et éliminer le français sur leurs boîtes de corn flakes.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Pas illusion mais bien allusion...sorry

    ReplyDelete
  64. Bill 101 is the greatest law ever created, english is an inferior language. this is why I don't allow my kids to soil my home with it.

    ReplyDelete
  65. @uncle tom,

    ya your kids can go on welfare with at the MMF and RPQ types. Bill 101 is a major failure. Despite being so draconian is still failed to stop Montreal from losing its anglo and allo population. What else do you expect from Quebec sait faire.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Meow.

    (Sorry... I just read all these comments and a banal kitty purr is about the most profound retort I could come up with today - to seppies, feddies, and undecideds alike).

    ReplyDelete
  67. Here is a good compromise between the two solitudes.

    Quebec be French and enact any legislation the politicians want to pass to stamp the "maudits angos".

    In the ROC we repeal the OLA and end the bad influence on the French pseudo fact in Canada

    We all live happily together with a large fence erected around Quebec to hold the allos and Quebecois inside Quebec. Of course the english de souche get a free pass out of Quebec.

    Voila, nor more french politicains in Ottawa, no more French of nebulous value in the ROC...no more English in Quebec which would ultimately be a death blow to the provinces (sorry..nationes) economy. Perfect, don't you all think.

    The Sooner Quebec is gone, the sooner we build a greater nation. Suggest everyone read Scowens book...Time to Say Goodbye.

    Let the scumbag corrupt politicians, mafia and language zealots flourish in their own cess pool of despair.

    Now that would be the real Canadian dream.

    ReplyDelete
  68. @12:58

    It can be fun to rant, but do you realise the irony that by taking such a position you're validating the fear-mongering that Quebec nationalists have been trying to instill in others to prove their point? Fear-mongering that is often the cause behind the negative sentiment towards Quebec in the first place?

    @10:23 Surely it's obvious he's a troll. No one actually goes around saying "English is an inferior language" - he's just trying to get a reaction out of you and it worked.

    ReplyDelete
  69. @Anon 10:23

    Bill 101....(oups)...Immigration without control is a major failure.

    ReplyDelete
  70. ALERTE!UNILINGUE ANGLOPHONE À CDP

    http://tinyurl.com/84astlc

    ReplyDelete
  71. @anon 8:07

    Immigration without control? All modern immigrants have to go through medical and financial requirements before qualifying for immigration to Canada. Controls could have been used in the past when all immigrants were accepted on the basis of their whiteness. Even in the late 1940s and 50s War criminals from europe were accepted and allowed to stay in canada. TO alot of "real Canadians" as they call themselves those were the good old days. Sorry the days of keep Canada white are over.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Canadian Anon: “It's not my job to ferry out links for you that you discard and tell me "look for more!"”

    Actually, if you want to support your argument with a specific example, it is reasonable to expect that you provide a link. I’ve dealt with too many 101 apologists who spout nonsense and refuse to provide links, so I tend to ask for them. And here, you are not asked to “look for more”, you are asked to back up your specific example with a link.

    And when you do provide a link, then we can take it further. As in the case of prop 103, which I admitted was a good example.


    Canadian Anon: “There are some provisions of it (the sign law for instance) that I don't like at all. If I had been in charge, I would have mandated that french needed to be present and at least of equal size - and left everything else up to the individuals. I would be in favor (though it's moot because we have no real need of it) of something like that in english Canada for, say, mandarin restaurant menus and ads.”

    Yet you still seem to apologize for 101. Despite the fact that all the provisions that you don’t like are stubbornly kept in it.

    As for 101-like laws in the rest of Canada that would go after Mandarin restaurants for example, I am against it, as you probably would have guessed. Different mentalities clashing here - one that favors state power and coercion, and one that wants the state out of people’s everyday affairs.


    Canadian Anon: “I guess my problems with 101 are a matter of scale, and not of principle”

    Totally understood. I get your “principle” now. See the last sentence of my last paragraph dealing with mentalities.



    Canadian Anon: “We can agree to disagree, yes?”

    Absolutely. There is no other way.


    Canadian Anon: “It can be fun to rant, but do you realise the irony that by taking such a position you're validating the fear-mongering that Quebec nationalists have been trying to instill in others to prove their point?”

    I think Anon 12:58’s point is not so far off the mark. As for fear mongering, the problem with it is that it persists regardless of what Canada does. And it persists because it works. The “let’s back off and concede to Quebec” approach was reasonable back in the 1960’s and 1970’s, but now it is obvious that the blackmail mentality has become an integral part of the province of Quebec. And it means that Canada should adopt a tougher stance towards Quebec. Fair, but tougher.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Canadian Anon, just out of curiosity, in terms of 101-like legislation for the rest of Canada that you would be in favor of, are you thinking of one that would "promote" English only, or "promote" English and French combined? In other words, would it go after any non-English menu (Mandarin, Hindi, Punjabi, Cantonese, Ukrainian AND French), or would it leave French out of it? Also, when going after a Mandarin menu, would it demand equal size English on it, or equal size English and equal size French next to the Mandarin?

    Having read your comments over the past few days, I have a good idea what your response (and the justification of that response) will be for this.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Calgary (Canadian) Anon, one more thing before I let you reply. I noticed that when speaking of the absence of language legislation in the rest of Canada, you cleverly included the following bit: (though it's moot because we have no real need of it), as if to suggest that the reason why 101-like legislation may not exist in the rest of Canada is because "there is no need for it". The problem here is two-fold.

    1. There are plenty of places in BC, Ontario, and maybe even Alberta, where an English-"promoting" legislation could be argued for. There are many restaurants and stores with Mandarin or Punjabi menus and signs. Yet no legislation is on the books.

    2. You seem to argue that such legislation is a normality when certain conditions arise (i.e. if you're in Quebec, you're trapped in a "sea of English", so it's normal for something like this to come up). You fail to notice that such things arise for other reasons, like racism and resentment of a certain language or culture, and the argument of "threat" is used as cover. You also fail to notice that some minority cultures may have too much pride to defend themselves by resorting to coercive imposition on others. I. for one, would oppose it in places where my culture were minoritarian, even by a ratio of 1 to 100.

    ReplyDelete
  75. @ Anonymous aka Press 9,

    "...aux jeune de parlé entre eux en angalais..."

    "Est-ce un dialecte de l'Angola?"

    I wouldn't be so quick to attack the spelling of others on this blog. You're not even familiar with basic punctuation. You're obviously a product of the Quebec French school system.

    "@Éditeur
    Ne comptez pas sur ma présence au cours des prochains jours car je dois ressusciter 3 autres blogues en perte de vitesse et qui sont sur le point de perdre certains commanditaires."

    Those blogs are probably losing sponsors because they're run by racist, intolerant a-holes like yourself. Do you really think the Editor or anyone else who follows this blog cares about what you are doing? You offer nothing of any value in your idiotic comments.

    ReplyDelete
  76. @ Calgary Anonymous,

    Are you a Francophone? Perhaps an Acadian from New Brunswick? If so, it would help explain your unconditional support for Quebec's language laws.

    ReplyDelete
  77. "Are you a Francophone? Perhaps an Acadian from New Brunswick?"

    I suspect he might be. Based no everything he's written here.

    ReplyDelete
  78. "I wouldn't be so quick to attack the spelling of others on this blog. You're not even familiar with basic punctuation. You're obviously a product of the Quebec French school system."

    Le problème provient du fait que je travaille sur un clavier anglo acquis sur le marché noir.C'est fou ce que l'on peut trouver dans certains sous-sols du quartier Chinois.

    Ça vous intéresse?

    ReplyDelete
  79. @anon 1:51

    I did some contract work for a francophone dominated ecommerce company. They had so many issues with all the "accents" they just got rid of them to make it simple. All e-mails just had the works with out them. Made life simple for all of them. Only english was at the call centre for english customers. They were all french speaking pur laine as well, that provided the english customer service and support.

    ReplyDelete
  80. "I did some contract work for a francophone dominated ecommerce company. They had so many issues with all the "accents" they just got rid of them to make it simple."

    Le système Québécois d'éducation ne serait donc pas le seul responsable pour la mauvaise ponctuation...Quand y'a un problème au Québec,y'a un anglo pas très loin..:)

    ReplyDelete
  81. "Canadian Anon, just out of curiosity, in terms of 101-like legislation for the rest of Canada that you would be in favor of, are you thinking of one that would "promote" English only, or "promote" English and French combined? In other words, would it go after any non-English menu (Mandarin, Hindi, Punjabi, Cantonese, Ukrainian AND French), or would it leave French out of it? Also, when going after a Mandarin menu, would it demand equal size English on it, or equal size English and equal size French next to the Mandarin?"

    I would argue that it would make sense if the majority language of the province was the one that was necessary. It would make zero sense to promote french in BC, for instance. French signage and menus and such in minority francophone areas should be at the business' discretion.

    New Brunswick would be a problem, two languages is already a lot. Perhaps it could be either, to the owner's discretion?

    The "Equal size" condition is there so that one does not say "there, I obeyed the law - it's there in size 0 font at the bottom right". The order does not concern me too much, people who read too much into that kind of baffle me.

    We have laws that coerce businesses into providing minimum wages, a safe environment to work in *and* to shop in, laws that say that discrimination is illegal. All of these are social mores coerced on the business. I see "be able to receive service in the official language of the province" as more of the same, really.

    ReplyDelete
  82. "1. There are plenty of places in BC, Ontario, and maybe even Alberta, where an English-"promoting" legislation could be argued for. There are many restaurants and stores with Mandarin or Punjabi menus and signs. Yet no legislation is on the books."

    There are many places with Punjabi and Mandarin menus and signs; I don't think I've seen any that could not serve us in English, however. With some difficulty, yes. Menus that are verbose in mandarin and cursory in English, yes. Complete and utter lack of English menus? no. I'm betting that when bill 101 was passed, there were places where "English or go fuck yourself" was the philosophy. But I didn't live there then and don't know anyone who did. It would be interesting to know anecdotes from back then.

    "2. You seem to argue that such legislation is a normality when certain conditions arise (i.e. if you're in Quebec, you're trapped in a "sea of English", so it's normal for something like this to come up)."

    That is the gist of it, yes.

    "You fail to notice that such things arise for other reasons, like racism and resentment of a certain language or culture, and the argument of "threat" is used as cover. You also fail to notice that some minority cultures may have too much pride to defend themselves by resorting to coercive imposition on others. I. for one, would oppose it in places where my culture were minoritarian, even by a ratio of 1 to 100."

    Perhaps you are more cynical than I am? I take the justification of the "threat" at face value; resentment and racism unfortunately exist but I don't think they are the main root of language legislation.

    ReplyDelete
  83. "And when you do provide a link, then we can take it further. As in the case of prop 103, which I admitted was a good example."

    It just irks me because it's literally two clicks away from the link I gave you. You click on "Legislation - State" and then on "Iowa".

    http://www.us-english.org/view/348

    Here is an in-depth investigation of the Estonian language law. You'll probably find it the most like Quebec's bill 101. It's situation was a bit similar - next to a whole bunch of Russian, under Russian-dominated government for much of the 20th century, who used a campaign of aggressive Russification. The English in Quebec did no such aggressive campaign, on the other hand their influence was felt for much longer. In any case, by the time the Soviet government collapsed you had a majority of Estonian citizens who were disenfranchised compared to the small Russian minority.

    http://www.usefoundation.org/view/205
    http://www.regione.taa.it/biblioteca/minoranze/estonia3.pdf\

    Notable passages : "Article 4 (The right to use the Estonian language)

    Every person shall have the right to use the Estonian language as the official language in state institutions, local government, and cultural autonomy bodies as well as in institutions, enterprises and organizations.

    All employees of institutions, enterprises and organizations must be guaranteed work-related information in the Estonian language."

    "As for 101-like laws in the rest of Canada that would go after Mandarin restaurants for example, I am against it, as you probably would have guessed. Different mentalities clashing here - one that favors state power and coercion, and one that wants the state out of people’s everyday affairs."

    Are you a libertarian by any chance? If so, that might explain many of our differences. Many things that I take for granted (minimum wage, overtime pay, safe work environment, no discrimination/sexual harassment, etc..) are deemed coercion by libertarians, though I see it as a compromise between the rights of a business owner and the rights of a worker. Read "right" here as "something we choose to give" rather than a so-called "unalienable right" or "a moral imperative" such as, say, the right to a trial.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Also : "Article 23 (Language of information)

    The language for public signs, signposts, advertisements, announcements and advertising shall be the Estonian language, except in the cases determined in Articles 13, 15 and 18 of the present Law and by organization of international events."

    Note that I'm not necessarily saying "Estonian language law is exactly the same as Quebec's, and this makes Quebec's morally right". Rather, I am pointing out that there are language laws in other parts of the world, where the local majority feel that it is necessary to preserve it.

    While you yourself may feel that, as the dinosaurs long ago it is time for your culture and language to yield before the culture and language of richer parts of the world, other countries/cultures may not agree.

    ReplyDelete
  85. "Are you a Francophone? Perhaps an Acadian from New Brunswick? If so, it would help explain your unconditional support for Quebec's language laws."

    I'm a proud Canadian, and I feel that's the only relevant thing to this discussion. Though I will say that I've lived in Alberta, Ontario, New-Brunswick and Nova Scotia. I have visited PEI, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Quebec. The only provinces I've yet to experience are Manitoba and Newfoundland.

    And I would hardly call my support for Bill 101 "unconditional". Did I not voice many of the apprehensions I have about it? What you are doing is inflating my defense of it in order to make me seem like a zealot (only zealots "unconditionally support" things).

    Presumably a proud Anglo-Canadian would never betray "his own" by defending the choices of "The Others", so I must be some sort of fifth columnist, is that what you're implying? Please clarify.

    ReplyDelete
  86. "Are you a libertarian by any chance? If so, that might explain many of our differences."

    I am a left-leaning libertarian along the lines of Noam Chomsky. The examples you gave (minimum wage, overtime pay, safe work environment, no discrimination/sexual harassment, etc..) are libertarian concepts only in the American definition of libertarianism, which is of a very right wing type.

    Chomsky explains it well here:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wriQGI5NGOM

    At 1:38 he makes a point about private tyrannies and state tyrannies.

    The examples you cited (the withdrawal of minimum wage or overtime pay, unsafe work environment, or environmental degradation) are examples of corporate or private tyranny. Things like language legislation, excessive and ever increasing taxation, waste + embezzlement + misappropriation of public funds, nepotism in government bureaucracy, arbitrary laws that target population like various petty and arbitrary municipal prohibitions, or capricious ticketing by the police to fill up their monthly ticket quotas (in Quebec proven at one point by a Journal de Montreal investigation) are examples of state tyranny.

    You may oppose corporate tyranny, but you're in favor of state tyranny in a form of language legislation. I'm opposed to both state and private tyranny.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Thanks for the link, I will be sure to watch it when I get home! I've heard of Noam Chomsky before but I never listened to him. I'm always in favour of well-argued political stances that I'm not familiar with.

    It's needless moral commentary that turns me off.

    ReplyDelete
  88. @ Calgary Anonymous,

    "I'm a proud Canadian, and I feel that's the only relevant thing to this discussion."

    Thanks. Your evasive response answered my question.

    "Presumably a proud Anglo-Canadian would never betray "his own" by defending the choices of "The Others", so I must be some sort of fifth columnist, is that what you're implying? Please clarify."

    I find it interesting that you use the term "The Others," which is a direct translation of the term, "les autres" which the pur-laine Quebecois use to refer to people not of their ilk. I'm not implying that you're a fifth columnist. I think you are a Francophone.

    ReplyDelete
  89. "Le problème provient du fait que je travaille sur un clavier anglo acquis sur le marché noir.C'est fou ce que l'on peut trouver dans certains sous-sols du quartier Chinois."

    I'm not surprised that you would be involved in something crooked. So many Quebecois are corrupt.

    You can't blame your punctuation problems on your keyboard. Your errors are just too basic.

    ReplyDelete
  90. What’s really going on?

    I wonder if people realize what’s really going on in this country. Quebec has spent the last 5 decades wiping out the English language and culture from the province with racist, anti-English language laws such as bill 22, 178, 101…This is a fact. Racism, intolerance, bigotry, ethnic language cleansing and human rights violations still going on in the province of Quebec.

    Ya, Quebec, where the English, Scottish, Irish, United Empire Loyalists… built up the province of Kebec (original native spelling) since 1763. Yes, the same province of Kebec where the Union Jack and Red Ensign flew until 1950. Again, just the facts…This lie, this hoax, this revisionist nonsense that Quebec is a French province and that Canada is bilingual is just that, an outright lie. Fact: We have been part of the British Empire since 1763.We were officially an English speaking country for over 200 years, again just the facts.

    Almost 1 million people have been forced out of the province of Kebec due to this type of hatred/lie/spin… While all this is going on in Quebec they are forcing the French language outside Quebec in every province. Everything and anything the French demand, they are getting across this entire country. They call it bilingualism (another lie never clearly defined on purpose). What are they really up to? “First Quebec, then we take over the rest of the country, one step at a time…through bilingualism…” PT, “How to take over a country through bilingualism…” SD.

    Ask yourself a simple question. Why are we not teaching our real BNA history? Why are we not teaching our proud UEL history in our schools any longer? Why are francophone’s overrepresented in all government departments, policing, heath care…? Don’t believe me, go check the stats’ for yourself.

    Now do you see what this phony, expensive bilingual debate is really about and more importantly, who’s going to put a stop to this revisionist nonsense, the lies...?

    Quebec has said no to bilingualism and so should the rest of the country. Wake up, people! Enough is enough!

    Why the silence from all politicians?

    ReplyDelete
  91. "I find it interesting that you use the term "The Others," which is a direct translation of the term, "les autres" which the pur-laine Quebecois use to refer to people not of their ilk. I'm not implying that you're a fifth columnist. I think you are a Francophone."

    I obtained it from reading http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/ actually - the concept of "othering" is to take a group of society, label them as "different", use that to explain why they want things because of moral flaws instead of rational reasoning of their own, then hate them for it.

    A good example is some of the views held against muslims, especially in the US.

    1. You take muslims, and you Other them. "Muslims are just different from us."
    2. You ascribe their wants/voting pattern/whatever to moral defects. "They hate freedom."
    3. You are now free to hate said group; the hate and the feeling of having an enemy makes one feel better and increases the group cohesiveness.

    As others may very well realise, Othering is a very pervasive behaviour pretty much everywhere. In Canada, we Other mainly Quebeckers and Americans. In Quebec, they Other the rest of Canada. I have not ever seen any francophones use "les autres" to describe anyone, but then I don't discuss these things with francophones.

    It's also a time-honoured method to garner support in an authoritarian regime; it's been documented on this blog often enough to the point that Quebec is compared to Nazi Germany.
    I suggest the free e-book "The Authoritarians" to learn more about the subject, written by one of our very own here in Manitoba. The book does not refer to the practice as "Othering", but certainly do talk extensively about it.

    http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

    If you want more information about Othering, it's a well-defined practice on Wikipedia.

    "It has been used in social science to understand the processes by which societies and groups exclude 'Others' whom they want to subordinate or who do not fit into their society. The concept of 'otherness' is also integral to the comprehending of a person, as people construct roles for themselves in relation to an 'other' as part of a process of reaction that is not necessarily related to stigmatization or condemnation. Othering is imperative to national identities, where practices of admittance and segregation can form and sustain boundaries and national character. Othering helps distinguish between home and away, the uncertain or certain. It often involves the demonization and dehumanization of groups, which further justifies attempts to civilize and exploit these 'inferior' others."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other

    ReplyDelete
  92. The post above mine is a fairly common example of Othering, actually - you see that the things the Quebeckers do are never ascribed to reason, or is any attempt done to try and understand it from a reasoning point of view. Instead, we are told that it can all be explained by "Racism, intolerance, bigotry, ethnic language cleansing and human rights violations".

    That's step 1. Step 2 is pushing through a revisionist view of Canadian history. Read more about the subject, and you'll see that even if the British ruled english was never exclusively used to govern Quebec ever since they had a national assembly. The Truth is much more complex than these feel-good simplifications. I suggest the excellent book "The French Canadians 1760-1967" by Mason Wade, the former director of Canadian Studies at the University of Rochestor in the 50's. Since the book was written before the quiet revolution, it predates the more rabid french-hating of the later decades. It's a fantastic read.

    Then, finally, we are presented with something utterly illogical just to garner more hate on the Othered Quebeckers. Supposedly, these hateful Quebeckers want nothing to do with the rest of Canada at all - yet are also dedicated to frenchifying the rest of it! They want to seperate, AND rule Canada! You can't have it both ways.

    Even the most cursory examination of seppie blogs/columns will reveal to you that the more rabid a seppie is at frenchifying and seperating Quebec, the less of a shit he gives about RoC, except that any lapse in billingualism in the RoC will be used to justify to people on the fence that the RoC doesen't care about them. They're more than willing to throw out-of-Quebec francophones under the bus in order to get their independant country.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Huh, for some reason this post dissapeared. I will post it again. Sorry to the editor if this results in a double post.

    "I find it interesting that you use the term "The Others," which is a direct translation of the term, "les autres" which the pur-laine Quebecois use to refer to people not of their ilk. I'm not implying that you're a fifth columnist. I think you are a Francophone."

    I obtained it from reading http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/ actually - the concept of "othering" is to take a group of society, label them as "different", use that to explain why they want things because of moral flaws instead of rational reasoning of their own, then hate them for it.

    A good example is some of the views held against muslims, especially in the US.

    1. You take muslims, and you Other them. "Muslims are just different from us."
    2. You ascribe their wants/voting pattern/whatever to moral defects. "They hate freedom."
    3. You are now free to hate said group; the hate and the feeling of having an enemy makes one feel better and increases the group cohesiveness.

    As others may very well realise, Othering is a very pervasive behaviour pretty much everywhere. In Canada, we Other mainly Quebeckers and Americans. In Quebec, they Other the rest of Canada. I have not ever seen any francophones use "les autres" to describe anyone, but then I don't discuss these things with francophones.

    It's also a time-honoured method to garner support in an authoritarian regime; it's been documented on this blog often enough to the point that Quebec is compared to Nazi Germany.
    I suggest the free e-book "The Authoritarians" to learn more about the subject, written by one of our very own here in Manitoba. The book does not refer to the practice as "Othering", but certainly do talk extensively about it.

    http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

    If you want more information about Othering, it's a well-defined practice on Wikipedia.

    "It has been used in social science to understand the processes by which societies and groups exclude 'Others' whom they want to subordinate or who do not fit into their society. The concept of 'otherness' is also integral to the comprehending of a person, as people construct roles for themselves in relation to an 'other' as part of a process of reaction that is not necessarily related to stigmatization or condemnation. Othering is imperative to national identities, where practices of admittance and segregation can form and sustain boundaries and national character. Othering helps distinguish between home and away, the uncertain or certain. It often involves the demonization and dehumanization of groups, which further justifies attempts to civilize and exploit these 'inferior' others."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other

    ReplyDelete
  94. My post on Othering has dissapeared twice now. At this late hour (for the east) I suspect it's some kind of anti-spam measure because of the amount of links in it. Editor, any way to prevent that?

    ReplyDelete
  95. Third time might be the charm? I'll remove some links.

    "I find it interesting that you use the term "The Others," which is a direct translation of the term, "les autres" which the pur-laine Quebecois use to refer to people not of their ilk. I'm not implying that you're a fifth columnist. I think you are a Francophone."

    I obtained it from reading a website called Sociological Images actually - the concept of "othering" is to take a group of society, label them as "different", use that to explain why they want things because of moral flaws instead of rational reasoning of their own, then hate them for it.

    A good example is some of the views held against muslims, especially in the US.

    1. You take muslims, and you Other them. "Muslims are just different from us."
    2. You ascribe their wants/voting pattern/whatever to moral defects. "They hate freedom."
    3. You are now free to hate said group; the hate and the feeling of having an enemy makes one feel better and increases the group cohesiveness.

    As others may very well realise, Othering is a very pervasive behaviour pretty much everywhere. In Canada, we Other mainly Quebeckers and Americans. In Quebec, they Other the rest of Canada. I have not ever seen any francophones use "les autres" to describe anyone, but then I don't discuss these things with francophones.

    It's also a time-honoured method to garner support in an authoritarian regime; it's been documented on this blog often enough to the point that Quebec is compared to Nazi Germany.
    I suggest the free e-book "The Authoritarians" to learn more about the subject, written by one of our very own here in Manitoba. The book does not refer to the practice as "Othering", but certainly do talk extensively about it. http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

    If you want more information about Othering, it's a well-defined practice on Wikipedia. Just search for Othering.

    "It has been used in social science to understand the processes by which societies and groups exclude 'Others' whom they want to subordinate or who do not fit into their society. The concept of 'otherness' is also integral to the comprehending of a person, as people construct roles for themselves in relation to an 'other' as part of a process of reaction that is not necessarily related to stigmatization or condemnation. Othering is imperative to national identities, where practices of admittance and segregation can form and sustain boundaries and national character. Othering helps distinguish between home and away, the uncertain or certain. It often involves the demonization and dehumanization of groups, which further justifies attempts to civilize and exploit these 'inferior' others."

    ReplyDelete
  96. "I have not ever seen any francophones use "les autres" to describe anyone, but then I don't discuss these things with francophones."

    I have heard Francophones use the term, "les autres." I'm reminded of a cartoon by the great political cartoonist, Aislin. In the cartoon he shows two bathroom doors. On one door is a "Nous Autres" sign and on the other door is a "Les Autres" sign. It's a play on the segregation of blacks and whites in the southern U.S. in the past.

    The Quebecois are some of the most exclusionary people in North America.

    ReplyDelete
  97. I see the play. Not being able to see the comic though, what was the intended message? Did it say that the Franco-Quebeckers ought to segregate non-Franco-Quebeckers?

    It's very interesting, in any case. I already knew alot about the practice of Othering, but I think this is the first time where I actually see people use "the Others" literally. Usually examples of the concept in action are much more abstract.

    ReplyDelete
  98. I belive it is a mistake to compare the Anglo minority of Quebec to the spanish (often illigal) first generation immigrants of the american South.

    The anglos that are upset by these laws are not first generation immigrants. They are Quebecers, that have family history in QC for hundreds of years.

    This goes somewhat to the root of the issue, the seperation movement is not inclusive, it is exclusive. The goal is to seperate QC and purge it of the allo & anglo minorities. For supporters of seperation, until your idea becomes Us vs. them (federal canada) the movment will fail. Include all Quebecers!

    ReplyDelete