No doubt you heard about the
The Chinese immigrant was castigated for his lack of French and given a lesson in Bill 101, but the shopkeeper wasn't having any of it and unloaded on his accuser, in no uncertain terms.
It was actually quite hilarious.. Give a listen;
If you don't speak French it doesn't matter, most of the action is in English.
As you can imagine when the call was aired on the radio, it evoked quite a reaction.
Here's a video of a demonstration mounted in front of the convenience store by Les Jeunes patriotes du Québec. YouTube
Here's a story over CTV.
Read some of the comments below the article for a laugh!
Thanks to Andrew for the story.Now I mention all this because the next day, Mr. Dutrizac interviewed none other than the esteemed Madame Louise Marchand, head of the l'Office québécois de la langue française, who tut-tutted at the extreme disrespect shown by this immigrant to the francophone majority.
It's one thing for a renowned Anglo-hater like Dutrizac to unload on an immigrant, taping a conversation surreptitiously and airing it without permission. Picking on the most vulnerable, an immigrant shopkeeper who probably works a hundred hours a week, may be par for the course for this self-important sleazebag, BUT......
the head of the OQLF dumping on the shopkeeper goes beyond the pale.
It seems that Madame Marchand is doing a lot of talking lately and I am fast coming to the realization that a lot of it is misdirection and malarkey.
Her latest campaign of 'persuasion' instead of enforcement in the matter of English store names and 'descriptives' has me thinking that the lady has no case at all.
It's like a cop making a friendly 'suggestion,' ....it only happens when he has no legal way to force you to do what he wants you to do.
Let's go back to the beginning.
Bill 101 was drafted almost thirty-five years ago by the famous Dr. Camille Laurin, who made no bones about the fact that it was a more than a law about protecting and promoting the French language but rather a political instrument designed to further the cause of sovereignty.
It is important to understand this aspect, Bill 101 was created to promote sovereignty, as the good doctor freely admitted.
When Rene Levesque first saw the draft version of the law presented to his cabinet, barely three months after the PQ won the election, he was quite honestly appalled and pointed out to Laurin that many parts of it were clearly unconstitutional, plain to see, even to non-lawyer.
One of the original clauses in the act actually outlawed English in the courts and the legislature, something directly contravening the B.N.A Act.
Those court challenges which would ultimately succeed, would engender a sense of rage among francophones, feeding the fire of sovereignty.
The strategy worked magnificently, over the years, some 70 clauses have been repealed, rejected or rewritten, representing about one-third of the law.
Today it is an integral part of the sovereigntists narrative that the evil Supreme Court has taken an axe to the law in revenge against Franco-Quebecer nationalism.
In that respect Mr. Laurin is to be congratulated for his grand deception, a marvel of cynical manipulation.
But pardon me if I don't clap.
When Laurin first presented his draft law to reporters at a press conference, a young reporter at the time, Don Macpherson, asked Dr. Laurin if he was prepared, and if he would indeed welcome the exodus of minorities that would surely ensue. A deadpan Laurin answered that he would regret such an exodus, but clearly it was lie.
Although Levesque objected to the law, he was overwhelmed by his own cabinet and when Laurin presented Bill 101 to Parliament Levesque signaled his displeasure by walking out on the presentation, but the law passed anyway.
Bill 101 was conceived as a weapon for sovereignty and remains such today, to pretend otherwise is pure fantasy. Ask any of the mayor players involved in its creation and they will freely admit it.
Unfortunately most francophones have bought into the lie that Bill 101 is only about protecting the French language, not persecuting minorities.
It is in this context we can understand why the OQLF attempts to restrict, eliminate and render minorities uncomfortable, in any way it can. It is all about sovereignty.
It still goes on today. Anglophones being told they cannot buy English products because they are in Quebec.
 |
| Thanks to Susan for the link... |
I don't think that the law provides for that, but I'm sure the OQLF is creating a climate of fear, scaring manufacturers with misinformation, then claiming they had nothing to do with it.
Now the law provides many rules and regulations for the use of French and places limits on minority languages rights, but a lot is left unsaid and so Bill 101 actually provides for the government to add definition to the law by means of regulations that the OQLF may provide from time to time.
Two of these regulations, or interpretations are quite interesting.
One concerns the name of businesses and the right to use a registered trademark on its masthead and in advertising.
Now here are the regulations directly from the OQLF website, I'm not making any of it up.
Clearly, there is no such requirement for a 'descriptive' phrase to be added to a trademark.
Regulation respecting the language of commerce and business
Charter of the French language(R.S.Q., c. C-11, ss. 54.1, 58 and 67)
25. On public signs and posters and in commercial advertising, the following may appear exclusively in a language other than French:
(1) the firm name of a firm established exclusively outside Québec;
(2) a name of origin, the denomination of an exotic product or foreign specialty, a heraldic motto or any other non-commercial motto;
(3) a place name designating a place situated outside Québec or a place name in such other language as officialized by the Commission de toponymie du Québec, a family name, a given name or the name of a personality or character or a distinctive name of a cultural nature; and
(4) a recognized trade mark within the meaning of the Trade Marks Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. T-13), unless a French version has been registered. OQLF LINK
I have no idea by virtue of what rule or regulation the OQLF is now demanding that companies do so.
I also believe that trifling with international law vis-a-vis trademarks is a losing proposition if the OQLF decides to add a rule to provide a requirement for modifiers.
As of now, I believe none exists.
Secondly is the concern over English communication in Huntingdon.
The OQLF has said that it is illegal for the city to add English in addition to French in its communication with citizens.
As I told you on Monday, (after Hugo S. pointed it out) this goes against the OQLF's own interpretation.
 |
| Link to original OQLF web page |
I don't think the above notice could be much clearer.
I'm not a lawyer, but these two examples seem to run completely opposite what Madame Marchand is saying in public.
Is the OQLF out of control, making things up as it goes along?
Does Madame Marchand actually know what the heck she is talking about, when she tells us that Canadian Tire must by law add a descriptive, where no law or regulation exists requiring it to do so?
Why isn't anybody calling out for clarification?
************************************************
************************************************
UPDATE!
************************************************
************************************************
Here is a story on the depanneur that was aired on CBC. Listen here