OQLF Serves Up a Hearty Dish of Statistical Lies and Nonsense

It's natural to be skeptical when presented with studies and reports offered by organizations that have an axe to grind or a position to defend or promote.

One certainly wouldn't be faulted for mistrusting or discounting, from the onset, a report on abortion prepared by either the Pro-life Movement or the Pro-Choice Movement, as each organization would be expected to present those facts, figures and conclusions that best represent and promote their position.

It's also natural that when these reports are presented to the public, they be subject to a rigorous critique, usually performed by peer groups and those with opposing views.

Using the example above, it's natural that  the Pro-life group would use its experts to deconstruct a report presented to the public by the Pro-Choice group, in order to discredit it by means of exposing its shortcomings, whether it be false premises or conclusions, poor or incorrect methodology, or outright intentional deception.

The scientific community has long relied on the principle of 'Peer review' whereby scientific papers presented to the public are scrupulously tested and evaluated for flaws, errors, methodological errors and faulty conclusions or contaminated or faulty testing.
Any scientist presenting a paper to a scientific journal knows full well he will have to defend the work before his peers, who will either confirm his paper to a varying degree between a valid scientific piece of work, or a piece of junk science.

The best example that I can think of is the debunking of the concept of 'Cold fusion', which if true promised a cheap and abundant source of energy.
The two promoters of the concept, were mercilessly critiqued by other scientists who try as they would, were unable to replicate the experimental results.
For those of you with the time read  Cold Fusion: Future of physics or phoney?,  an article which nicely demonstrates the scientific method of 'peer review' in action.

Last week the OQLF came out with a series of studies reporting on the condition of French language in the retail industry in downtown Montreal, be it signage or the use of French in communicating with customers.

As for its credibility, I take the conclusions with a grain of salt,  giving the results as much credence as I would to a report published by Al Qaeda, maintaining definitively that Allah is the only true God.

Make no mistake, the OQLF has but one mission, the restriction and ultimate elimination of English from the Quebec landscape...period.
Any report that the OQLF puts out will promote this end and accepting the conclusions is an exercise in self-deception, something the mainstream media has embraced wholeheartedly.

It remains a maddening mystery as to why, when it comes to accepting any report produced by the OQLF, the media accepts without qualification or skepticism, the conclusions, without critical review.

Not one news organization challenged the OQLF's tenet that companies using a registered trademark as a trade name are required to use a French modifier.
This false premise is the basis of much of the purported non-compliance that makes for the conclusions of the reports. It is a classic case of a false premise leading to a false conclusion.

Readers should be reminded that in the 35 years of Bill 101, not one company has ever been charged by the OQLF with violating Bill 101 because its name didn't carry a French modifier.

To my knowledge, not one company has ever received a letter of complaint or warning, vis-a-vis the requirement for a French modifier and the OQLF has never sent a demand letter calling on any specific companies to add a French modifier.

I have it on good authority that a least two prestigious law firms (one of them, completely French) have provided opinions to several large retailers with 'offending names' that the OQLF has no legal basis to make this type of demand.
The advice given by these law firms is for companies to stay the course and keep quiet and out of the debate. Until a letter is received demanding a change, it is wiser to say and do nothing.

For thirty-five years that letter has not come.

The demand for French modifiers by the OQLF is nothing more than a seedy shakedown, a campaign meant to scare companies into acquiescing or else face a vicious public smear campaign based on a lie.

When the PQ was in power back in 2000, Louise Beaudoin the minister in charge of the OQLF, solicited and received an opinion that a regulation demanding French modifiers be appended to English trademarks would be deemed illegal under international intellectual property law.

Here's one of the very few articles that dares tackle the issue. It was written Denis Lessard in La Presse, back in March.
Interestingly, the OQLF had no comment about the article and not one of the French language militants responded publicly to the damning conclusion.

"Yesterday, the spokesperson of the Office, Martin Bergeron, argued that it was too early to announce the number of complaints made ​​based on the question of name displays as a result of the campaign. "We checked our legal interpretation before moving forward. We understand that there are people who do not have the same interpretation as us," he said.

Ha!! That readers is the closest you're going to get to an admission that the OQLF knows that it is wrong.

Mr. Lessard went on to say this on the subject;

"This new campaign of the OQLF ignored a formal opinion of the Conseil de la langue, that was provided to the government of Lucien Bouchard in 2000, at a time when  Louise Beaudoin was the minister in charge. The PQ government was told then that it was advisable to use incentives to get companies to francize their names, since according to the law, they were not on solid ground." Link{Fr}

(Hier, le porte-parole de l'Office, Martin Bergeron, a soutenu qu'il était trop tôt pour annoncer le nombre de plaintes faites sur l'affichage à la suite de la campagne de l'organisme. «On a vérifié notre interprétation juridique avant d'aller de l'avant. On comprend qu'il y a des gens qui n'ont pas la même interprétation que nous», a-t-il lancé.

La campagne de l'Office fait fi d'un avis formel du Conseil de la langue, fourni au gouvernement de Lucien Bouchard en 2000, à l'époque où Louise Beaudoin était ministre responsable. Le gouvernement péquiste s'était fait dire qu'il devrait se rabattre sur des mesures incitatives pour que les entreprises francisent leur raison sociale, puisque du point de vue de la loi, il n'était pas en terrain solide.")

It's no wonder the OQLF is not pushing the issue through the courts, it knows that it will suffer a stunning defeat and so it has come up with its famous 'soft approach' wherein the OQLF is showing a 'kind' and 'generous face' by using a gentle form of intimidation, that is, the shaming of companies into doing what it wants them to do.

It is a con game, nothing short and nobody is willing to call out the OQLF for the fraud they are perpetrating.

I remain amazed that in the many press conferences given by Madame Marchand, not one reporter, English or French has dared to put this question forward.

"Is the OQLF lying to the public over French descriptors and if not, will it provide the legal basis for its opinion."

Interestingly, this week, Louise Marchand, the head of the OQLF was beaming as she announced that a new arrival to the Quebec retail scene CRATE & BARREL had decided to add the word 'MAISON' before its name.
Whaaatt????
What kind of descriptor is 'Maison,?' .....it's French for 'House of.'

It seems that every single company can add the innocuous "Maison" before its name and be in compliance.
Maison 'Best Buy," Maison Starbucks Coffee." Maison Canadian Tire," "Maison Home Depot" etc., etc.

What happened to real descriptors like 'Articles de Maison' Crate & Barrel?
I think it means that the Offeece is now committed to taking what it can get and any French word will be acceptable.

It's sad and oh so pitiful...

At any rate, the OQLF is now pursuing a new dangerous line of attack cut from the same cloth, wherein it is now considered a fault to greet a customer with the familiar "Bonjour/Hi," something we're all used to when shopping in downtown Montreal or in the West Island.

"Greeting someone in the two languages is certainly not against the Charter," notes the president of the OQLF, Louise Marchand "But it can constitute an irritant which gives the impression to the people that Montreal is anglicizing" Link{Fr}

So according to Madame OQLF, hearing English in public is now an irritant. Hmm.....

I want readers to consider that again.

According to the OQLF, hearing English in public is an irritant!!

It begs the question as o whether will it become public policy at the OQLF to discourage what is perfectly legal, again?

At any rate, I'm not going to critique the contents of the recently released reports, to do so would be a tacit admission that they are somehow valid, which they are not.

Everything about these reports is flawed, from methodology, to its foundation premise.
Had they been prepared by the propaganda office of the Iranian Ministry of Information, they wouldn't look much different.

I will however leave you with one particular pearl taken from the highlights reports. Download PDF

3. Between 2010 and 2012, a French only greeting went from 89% to 74%, while a bilingual greeting increased from 1% to 13%

(3.    Entre 2010 et 2012, l’accueil en français seulement est passé de 89 % à 74 %. Parallèlement, l’accueil bilingue a augmenté de 1 % à 13 %.)

I don't know what idiot prepared that data set, but someone should have thrown it out because it completely goes beyond the realm of credulity.

As all shoppers in downtown Montreal know, it is widely customary to greet customers with a "Bonjour/Hi," a greeting designed to convey the message that the clerk is prepared to offer service in either language.

It's been this way for many years, but the OQLF report claims that in the two short years between 2010 and 2012, the incidence of this greeting multiplied by an astonishing 1300%.

In other words, in 2010, only one in a hundred greetings were "Bonjour/Hi" and in 2012 the practice skyrocketed to thirteen times in a hundred.

An outright impossibility.
A finding that is pure unadulterated bullshit, pardon my French!

Anyone who shopped in downtown Montreal knows that two years ago, bilingual greetings were just as prevalent as today and any change over two years is statistically insignificant.

Bad data, bad conclusions..... but who really cares.

The only people who take these reports seriously are separatists and English language haters.