tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7963035472241877292.post3175308765544802867..comments2024-02-17T03:22:53.951-05:00Comments on No Dogs or Anglophones: 'Battered Anglo Syndrome' Alive and Well in MontrealEditorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05699783315783642466noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7963035472241877292.post-19530847033733014312010-11-30T10:50:23.205-05:002010-11-30T10:50:23.205-05:0011th Position – The English Speakers of Quebec, t...11th Position – The English Speakers of Quebec, the Anglophones: the Minority the Bloc Refuses to Accept Exists<br />You only have to look briefly at the Bloc’s site to understand the type of society this party proposes: a society where prejudice against Quebec’s English speaking population continues, and that it is acceptable they be treated as second class citizens. Anglophones, along with their fellow Quebeckers, don’t they have an interest to know the Bloc’s position regarding the Economy, the Environment, and Culture? How can the Bloc pretend to defend the interests of Quebec while affirming, that Anglos are a spoilt, over-funded minority, whereas at the same time, they refuse to address them in English through their tools of communication? What Federal political party writes off an entire part of the population that represents between 1 Million English speakers (+ 2 Million Bilingual persons) within their own province of 7.5M, by not even providing a link to English on their website? When Mr Duceppe speaks in English (and even admits his heritage is part Anglophone, the Rowlands), it is not to speak with his provincial Anglophone neighbours, but to sell the idea of separation to the rest of Canada and abroad, even from his Ottawa office! What possible credibility does the Bloc Québécois have, when it demands that our francophone brethren across Canada be respected, when this party’s own segregation-is-the-only-answer position is nothing other than pure hypocrisy? Their idea of a unilingual Quebec is not what our society represents, thus, a vote for the Bloc means swallowing the ‘Anglos do not matter to me’ pill.<br /><br />Read the rest of the Bloc's Failures, and how the certainly do not care of about Quebecker's interests (only concrete benefit is to their personal pension funds, and Duceppe's magical mystery tours abroad): <br />http://www.sqlservercentral.com/blogs/hugo/archive/2010/09/30/when-the-bloc-qu-233-b-233-cois-is-a-nuisance-for-quebeckers-interests-the-top-20-countdown.aspxHugo Shebbearehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02542714678024399257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7963035472241877292.post-41693750153067698682010-11-10T14:44:53.226-05:002010-11-10T14:44:53.226-05:00Hey Anonymous - Maybe brush up on your English rea...Hey Anonymous - Maybe brush up on your English reading skills, I did not say Francophones are the minority in Quebec and I quote:<br />The constitution of 1867 has provided the Francophone MINORITY in CANADA with "historical" rights, well the English of Quebec have been afforded the same "historical" rights here in Quebec. Although I would say now, Francophones in Quebec are BY FAR the BEST treated minority in Canada. <br />You ARE a minority IN CANADA!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7963035472241877292.post-29581473454600366532010-11-05T16:02:33.817-04:002010-11-05T16:02:33.817-04:00@ Nov.4, 10:35 PM:
Anglophones are indeed a minor...@ Nov.4, 10:35 PM:<br /><br />Anglophones are indeed a minority in Quebec and they are treated much worse than the Quebecois minority within Canada.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7963035472241877292.post-39535279855029949422010-11-04T22:35:30.483-04:002010-11-04T22:35:30.483-04:00''Although I would say now, Francophones i...''Although I would say now, Francophones in Quebec are BY FAR the BEST treated minority in Canada.'' Non, mais vous êtes idiot ou quoi ? Les francophones ne sont pas minoritaires au Québec, ce sont les anglophones qui les sont ! Québec indépendant !Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7963035472241877292.post-12961297237609867572010-11-03T14:59:43.498-04:002010-11-03T14:59:43.498-04:002/2
As for bilingualism at a young age NOT working...2/2<br />As for bilingualism at a young age NOT working, I suggest researching this further as there have are several advantages to learning languages at an early age, not by the biased sovereignist papers but by reputable linguists. It is known learning languages at a young age, provides better cognitive skills, ease of learning other languages even at older ages, not to mention a better mastery of our own maternal language. And an openness that being uniligual does not provide, a better understanding of others, etc... Check out research documents online, all this is verifiable.<br />I would also like to ask, why is it that I often hear from my Francophone friends they "do not have the right" to send their children to English school. It is them who wish to send their children. Bill 103 did not violate any English-Canadian rights, but it does French-Canadians or if you prefer, Quebecois. Another complaint I hear is that Anglos learn better French and receive a better education than in the French school system, hence the reason for them wishing to send their children to English schools. And I guess you're ok with denying a portion of our population this right? Why impose your will upon those who wish to have the choice? Like many that I know.<br />My child is four and is already learning French, it is not harming them at all. My first child is trilingual as they offer a third language in the International program. <br />Also, when will Francophones realize that Anglos do their part in promoting French as well. We are learning it from Kindergarten, our children are bilingual upon graduating elementary school. This I can attest to as I have one who is graduating high school this year. His French is far beyond "functional" as is his friends and my other Anglo friends and their children. As a matter of fact, I have been asked during interviews that require bilingualism whether I can speak English. So, contrary to your findings preached by the PQ and Bloc, bilingualism at a young age DOES work and actually has several benefits.<br />As for us being the "best treated minority", this is a tired statement. We have the same rights as Francophones outside Quebec, no more, no less. The constitution of 1867 has provided the Francophone minority in Canada with "historical" rights, well the English of Quebec have been afforded the same "historical" rights here in Quebec. Although I would say now, Francophones in Quebec are BY FAR the BEST treated minority in Canada.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7963035472241877292.post-23274855094748840522010-11-03T14:59:24.326-04:002010-11-03T14:59:24.326-04:00I would just like to comment on Anonymous' pos...I would just like to comment on Anonymous' post regarding no Anglo-bashing or negative comments and the rest of his/her post in general.<br />I have experienced first hand said discrimination, to deny it exists is ignorant. I'm not talking about the typical Anglo-bashing,I refer to full out, discrimination. <br />Let me explain, despite my being fluent, yes fluent, not "FUNCTIONALLY" bilingual, I have experienced a client refuse to do business with me on the basis of my mother tongue. I never even so much as met the person or spoke to them and they were assured that I was fluent. No, he wouldn't have it, he was not dealing with an Anglo. And this in the city of Montreal not the outskirts as you imply. I have also been cursed out for saying "sorry" in English (which was just instinct when I accidently brushed someone with my bag on the metro) and called maudit tete carree etc...but the rewarding part of all this, when I speak in a flawless French and tell them off as well. The surprised expression on their faces (since most are given to the stereotype that Anglos don't speak French), when I do respond to them in their language. It's actually quite comical. <br />As far as Bill 103, yes priviledged Francophones/Allophones will now be able to become bilingual. Notice I say Francophones/Allophones. Do you not see something wrong with this? Do you not see something wrong with your politicians providing their children the right to bilingualism while denying you and your family that right? Anglos are ALREADY priviledged, in that we can choose how to educate our children. We can decide to put them in a public French school or English school. It's our choice. And you as Marois was quoted saying "les petit peuples" are still allowing your government to make your decisions. Ha, the irony. <br />1/2Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7963035472241877292.post-40368552186623675922010-11-01T15:29:49.658-04:002010-11-01T15:29:49.658-04:00I appreciate your realism ADSKI as opposed to APPA...I appreciate your realism ADSKI as opposed to APPARATCHIK's mindless idealism. But I sense in your writing a hint that unilingual Anglophones are somehow "wrong" in not embracing bilingualism. But consider; You are a unilingual English-speaker living in Vancouver or Victoria. You live thousands of miles from Quebec. French is about as relevant to your daily life as Romanian is. The only time you ever hear a word of it is when you accidentally flip through the French language channel when you are using the TV remote. Now why would you go to all the time, effort and trouble to learn French? It is not a lack of cultural "sophistication" that explains unilingualim but self-interest. Bilingualism in Canada has no spatial, demographic or cultural underlying reality. The whole edifice is a facade that would collapse tomorrow if Quebec ever DID separate. You are right that millions of Spanish-speakers (most of them illegally) are entering the USA. But Spanish is not the language of commerce, science or technology. Nor is the average American Anglo any more drawn to Latin-Mexican culture then the average Canadian Anglophone is drawn to the culture of Francophone Quebec. And there is NOTHING WRONG with this. The Toronto guy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7963035472241877292.post-16488670654431690862010-11-01T11:33:44.200-04:002010-11-01T11:33:44.200-04:00I must add one note - the English Canadian attitud...I must add one note - the English Canadian attitude to other languages IN GENERAL is an equivalent of the American attitude, but their attitude towards French SPECIFICALLY in some cases is further complicated by political and historical considerations. So in the case of French, I still think most Canadians are indifferent, but some (I think a minority) can be hostile.<br /><br />A nationalist-federalist I know who lived in the RoC for a while estimates that 80% of English Canadians are “couldn’t be bothereds” about French (i.e. indifferent), about 10% are favorable (which seems to match the bilingualism rate in the RoC), and about 10% are hostile.adskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04196014962059056067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7963035472241877292.post-76724930305424243922010-11-01T11:13:02.927-04:002010-11-01T11:13:02.927-04:00Apparatchik,
I think that any attempt to eliminat...Apparatchik,<br /><br />I think that any attempt to eliminate (or reduce) animosities in this country of ours and to build a cohesive nation must be grounded in reality. And unfortunately, this reality is very constraining, and because of it, we are in the quagmire that seems to have no end.<br /><br />I by no means oppose the idea of bilingual Canada on principle. I think that fully French-English coast-to-coast bilingualism would definitely turn this federation into something that resembles a nation. The problem with this is that it is not real. Back in the 1970s, we knew that it was a long shot, but at least we could say: “let’s give it a shot”. In 2010, we must put this issue to rest. It cost us a lot of money and it did not work. English Canada is clearly indifferent. And my experience teaches me that it’s hard to make someone who is indifferent care. More often than not, it has the opposite effect – you actually end up upsetting him and maybe even turning him into your enemy.<br /><br />The reluctance of English Canada to pick up French (or any other language for that matter) is a carbon copy of American attitude on this matter – we are English speakers, our language dominates the world, so why should we bother. It is an attitude which is both grounded in reality, and at the same time self-limiting. In my opinion, given that Spanish is 350 million strong and is knocking at the southern US border, I find it astounding that they refuse to even make an effort. If I lived in southern US, I would be cramming Spanish like there is no tomorrow. But alas, that’s how they think, and that’s what we can’t do anything about.<br /><br />As for the solutions for our country, I think it largely rests with French Canadians accepting that they are cohabiting this country with “other” people, and these “other” people are both *different* and *indifferent*. This will involve swallowing of pride, I know, but it must happen. In this respect I wish that Francophones change their way of looking at this – instead of feeling slighted and ignored, why not think that by being bilingual, we are actually better than all those uniliguals, as we know an extra language and they don’t. This would require a shift in collective perception from what it is now – that since we have to learn their language and they don’t have to learn ours, we are somehow inferior.<br /><br />And alternative to swallowing the pride is Quebec separation. This would be equivalent to shooting yourself in the foot. The economic repercussions and inter-ethnic relations in an independent Quebec would not be enviable. My guess is that this province would implode, or become a US state (meaning an end to the French fact in NA within a generation).<br /><br />At this point I’d like to add that what Duceppe (politically) and Parizeau (as a writer) are doing right now is political gangsterism. They are opening up old wounds and making the ground fertile for more divisions, only to satisfy their OWN ambitions. If support for secession was polling at 60% or 70%, you might argue that it is politician’s responsibility to act on the will of the people. But since it’s continually polling low, bringing this issue to the forefront is nothing but political crime. It can't lead to anything good.adskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04196014962059056067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7963035472241877292.post-46241534731907099232010-11-01T09:52:35.464-04:002010-11-01T09:52:35.464-04:00Anonymous said...
"I must admit this was one...Anonymous said... <br />"I must admit this was one of your poorer posts. Dumping on Quebec nationalist rhetoric is fine,but attacking Quebec francophone culture is not.Television,film and theatre in francophone Quebec is truly amazing. Watching "Incendie" or any play by Robert Lepage this "bloke" is mightily impressed.Too my francophone brothers and sisters when it comes to culture Mad Dog is wrong."<br /><br />Liar! You are not an Anglophone, or so-called "bloke". You are a Francophone commentor, formerly known as Dartagnan. This indicates how much integrity you possess.Anglo Bashersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7963035472241877292.post-42451527985597455892010-11-01T07:26:40.245-04:002010-11-01T07:26:40.245-04:00"YES Apparatchik. That is what I want you to ..."YES Apparatchik. That is what I want you to believe because it is true, factual and reality. But you DON'T WANT to believe it. You WANT to believe whatever you want to believe, whether it is so or not. But that doesn't make it so. The Toronto guy."<br /><br />People will believe what they want to believe, and I could very easily hurl the same comment back your way.<br /><br />I guess what separates us is that I think Canadians can aspire to a more integrated national consciousness whereas you believe evolving in this direction is neither feasible nor desirable.<br /><br />I guess it's only to be expected that you and I should disagree. You seem to revile big-idea people like Trudeau because he was out of tune. I find that unfortunate because after a lifetime of reconciling three different cultural identities, I've come to appreciate what he stood for, at least culturally. And I'm not the first to get here. Many who hated Trudeau's cultural worldview never bothered walking a mile in his shoes.<br /><br />I've also come to appreciate that every now and then we get a leader with chutzpah AND who can challenge us to think outside the box. I respect someone that can aspire to an able, working, united Canada, rather than of us as one (or two) mindlessly obedient northern suburbs.Apparatchiknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7963035472241877292.post-33723293885642199022010-11-01T00:13:36.183-04:002010-11-01T00:13:36.183-04:00"...and you want me to believe that after all..."...and you want me to believe that after all the work we've done and gotten RIGHT, that ALL Canadians can't learn the other's language and will and work toward something as simple as a conscious, lasting, and cohesive cultural integration?"<br /><br />YES Apparatchik. That is what I want you to believe because it is true, factual and reality. But you DON'T WANT to believe it. You WANT to believe whatever you want to believe, whether it is so or not. But that doesn't make it so. The Toronto guy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7963035472241877292.post-45784432737995312222010-10-31T23:38:10.286-04:002010-10-31T23:38:10.286-04:00"Céline Dion is selling more copies than Cohe..."Céline Dion is selling more copies than Cohen by the way."<br /><br />And how many of them are in French language?Troynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7963035472241877292.post-23624234638522562882010-10-31T22:05:48.112-04:002010-10-31T22:05:48.112-04:00Why, just why do you live in Quebec if you hate th...Why, just why do you live in Quebec if you hate the Québécois so much? Just... just why? Can't you see how ridiculous you are?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7963035472241877292.post-49027915191632016832010-10-31T18:20:38.590-04:002010-10-31T18:20:38.590-04:00We have our rich capitalists and our white trash. ...We have our rich capitalists and our white trash. Our backward, bigoted rednecks (bluenecks?) are some of the finest on the continent, and can compete with the very best anywhere in the world. We stereotype people whose speech patterns drawl or twang more than some arbitrarily defined average.<br /><br />We play and watch (American-style) football. We even have college teams. With serious followings (for Canadian football, at least).<br /><br />Sure, we have our motley assortment of Quebecors, our Provigos, and our St-Huberts. But beyond ownership, how different are these from Rogers, Loblaws, and Swiss Chalet, which are about as foreign to Quebec as maple syrup and hydroelectricity? Looking south, how different are figures like Doc Mailloux and Dr Laura? Why do you think The Simpsons did so well in Quebec?<br /><br />Clearly we have a lot more in common, geographically, economically, and even culturally, than we appreciate.<br /><br />We even have a shared history. Consider how the Quebec Act of 1774 and its after effects could have ever have gone down the way they did (and a Canada independent of Manifest Destiny could have ever existed) had it not been for the presence of les Canadiens along the Saint-Lawrence.<br /><br />French radio stations in Quebec play what a newcomer would consider quite a lot of English music.<br /><br />We're already extremely integrated in ways well beyond the languages we speak. That's even more powerful when you consider how over 80% of communication isn't even verbal. <br /><br />All that's really left is language, and the entertainment/communications industries around it. With everything else so well-integrated, tell me again why I'm so crazy to think Peter Mansbridge should appear more often on Radio-Canada, or that Patrick Huard and Emmanuelle Latraverse should be just as familiar to you as Colm Feore and Susan Bonner are to me. <br /><br />The only reality to really be altering is the perception that SOME Canadians have about how un-integrated we really are. <br /><br />I'm really not much of a Zionist, but that movement's slogan - "if you will it, it is no dream" - is quite pertinent in any nation building exercise. They said Herzl was crazy and Ben-Gurion too. Sure, the early Zionists failed spectacularly at selling their project to the native Arabs, with tragic consequences to this day. Fortunately at least for us, where they failed, Canada (almost completely) succeeded. At the same time, Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews negotiated a very bumpy road toward some shared national consciousness within the tumults of Israeli society, despite their huge cultural differences.<br /><br />Nobody’s waged a recent Auschwitz-style holocaust here which brutally decimates entire families. Nobody’s building an illegal wall or settlement that intersects anybody’s ancestral olive grove. (How conveniently we leave out the Natives whose lands we both occupied).<br /><br />Our two solitudes haven't got a fraction of the integration (let alone recognition?) issues the Palestinians and Israelis have (thank Allah/God), and you want me to believe that after all the work we’ve done and gotten RIGHT, that ALL Canadians can't learn the other’s language and will and work toward something as simple as a conscious, lasting, and cohesive cultural integration? (How embarrassing for us that even many Israelis speak Arabic and many Palestinians speak Hebrew, and that many of both speak English…)<br /><br />If that’s true, maybe it’s just because we’re so tired, we can’t dream. Spoiled little rich kids, we are.<br /><br />(2)/2Apparatchiknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7963035472241877292.post-23178420449090941782010-10-31T18:20:13.049-04:002010-10-31T18:20:13.049-04:00@Toronto Guy
"You are a lot like Trudeau in ...@Toronto Guy<br /><br />"You are a lot like Trudeau in your mentality - a blissful ability to ignore facts, logic and unalterable realities."<br /><br />With respect, I think it is you who haven't taken stock of the realities that bind us together. I also choose to interpret your comment as a compliment, rather than as a derisive observation.<br /><br />When you factor out our competing nationalisms, we are in fact a lot more bicultural and have a lot more in common than you think. <br /><br />Our socially liberal outlook, our mutual appropriation of North American cultural markers, and (most eerily) even our way of speaking French reveal a sometimes unconscious connectedness with the continent at large.<br /><br />We believe in the welfare state much more than our neighbors to the south, and are environmentally aware of our attitudes and responsibilities toward our shared northern climate. <br /><br />We eat the same food, buy the same clothes, drive the same cars, spend the same currency in the same (inter)national chains, and are protected by the same military. The depth of our economic union with each other cannot be understated. Indeed, this was a major selling point behind confederation.<br /><br />We are governed by the same electrical, broadcasting, and telecommunications technical standards. We live and work in the world's (currently) most culturally, economically, and socially dominant time zone.<br /><br />For such a huge landmass, I'd say that's already quite impressive. But wait, there's more.<br /><br />We've stopped obsessing over the minute religious differences between Protestantism and Catholicism (for the most part). Indeed, we might believe in a God, but aren't sure one theory alone can faithfully explain how he governs the universe. Our cultural communities seem to be the only ones who subscribe en masse to some kind of organized religion.<br /><br />Shacking up before marriage, once taboo, is now not even the exception. It's become the norm. The rule, even. Marriage is a backward and formal institution. We've even managed to outdo the anglos on this one.<br /><br />Quebecers have an innate connection to this land, and don't feel European "French" beyond a loose historical connection to our ancestors who crossed the pond centuries ago. Sure, we are "French" inasmuch as we celebrate aspects of French cuisine and our own spin on French culture, fashion, and food. <br /><br />Our farm animals are blissfully unaware of any language legislation, and moo, oink, and cluck as they see fit. They taste good no matter where we eat them. Even the packaging they come in is the same across the country.<br /><br />Unlike our farm animals, our speech has been much maligned by our European cousins, yet we struggle to feel something beyond a passing kindredness to what we like to tell ourselves (and what is in many ways quite truthfully) a common language. Was it Shaw or Churchill who said of Britain and America that they are two nations divided by a common language? It doesn't really matter; what does is that the same holds true for France and Quebec/all of French Canada.<br /><br />(1)Apparatchiknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7963035472241877292.post-88617439326747161882010-10-31T16:40:53.146-04:002010-10-31T16:40:53.146-04:00I must admit this was one of your poorer posts. Du...I must admit this was one of your poorer posts. Dumping on Quebec nationalist rhetoric is fine,but attacking Quebec francophone culture is not.Television,film and theatre in francophone Quebec is truly amazing. Watching "Incendie" or any play by Robert Lepage this "bloke" is mightily impressed.Too my francophone brothers and sisters when it comes to culture Mad Dog is wrong.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7963035472241877292.post-79271801826885677622010-10-31T16:10:19.392-04:002010-10-31T16:10:19.392-04:00Apparatchik:
You just don't get it. You bemoa...Apparatchik:<br /><br />You just don't get it. You bemoan the lack of "crossover" journalists. That's because Canada is not and never will be an even remotely bilingual, let alone bicultural country. Trudeau sold naive Canadians on this poppycock forty-one years ago. Its not called two solitudes for nothing you know. Your "thought experiment" and "nation building" comment is inane to say the least. Believe me the great unwashed have other plans for themselves. You are a lot like Trudeau in your mentality - a blissful ability to ignore facts, logic and unalterable realities. The Toronto guy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7963035472241877292.post-55766206567415141302010-10-31T13:08:42.574-04:002010-10-31T13:08:42.574-04:00Céline Dion is selling more copies than Cohen by t...Céline Dion is selling more copies than Cohen by the way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7963035472241877292.post-13735344982829501272010-10-31T12:10:58.610-04:002010-10-31T12:10:58.610-04:00@Adski 9:39 AM
I'm in complete agreement. I a...@Adski 9:39 AM<br /><br />I'm in complete agreement. I also believe that trying to create a linguistic reality using genteel ethnic cleansing ought to fail specifically because it is based on restricting, rather than expanding, language opportunities.<br /><br />It is time for us to revisit our sacrosanct language ideals. It’s also time to expose the demagoguery that systematically robs all Quebecers of the opportunities that we deserve for the fraud that it is.<br /><br />The objective of interest groups hijacking the language debate has clear political motivations; namely, the furtherance of the two-solitudes paradigm, rather than its complete eradication. <br /><br />I agree with you that despite heavy governmental and para-governmental apparati purposely designed to disenfranchise, attenuate, or otherwise linguistically cleanse Quebec of its remaining non-francophone "historical elements", Montreal has not become a de-facto French-only place. It is shameful that governments, both Liberal and Péquiste alike, keep pulling on this string for political ends.<br /><br />I also agree that geopolitical pragmatism would dictate that we (francophones) would find a way to embrace the English-language element that surrounds us and indeed has been a very tangible part of our own story (for better or for worse) for over 250 years now, all while maintaining French as the very core language in which the Quebec psyche lives and breathes.<br /><br />Alas, methods to implement such a seemingly pragmatic “other way” are few and far between. Detractors to such a thought experiment have effectively monopolized this discourse (and to an extent that far outweighs their fair share) on this topic for nearly 40 years now. I agree with the idea that if their restrictive French-only solution truly offered Quebec a better way, it would have been embraced by all Quebecers, especially those who have found it most repugnant. The fact that this has not happened is proof enough that something is horribly the matter with the strategy.<br /><br />Alas, fearmongering keeps a lot of nationalists in business and has not been critically attacked, consumed, and unceremoniously excreted in the public sphere as it deserves to be. French-language media, whether covertly or overtly, have long been accomplices to preventing a genuine and healthy debate from ever truly taking place on this topic, and this has resulted in the tenuous stalemate that we are all living. Sensationalism seems more de rigueur even for those of us who like to think we’re so far above the trite Fox News.<br /><br />The pathetic lack of "crossover" journalists and commentators who regularly contribute and appear in both English and French language media outlets could be addressed. Sure, it’s encouraging to see the likes of Josée Legault, Chantal Hébert, and L. Ian MacDonald, appear on weekly talk shows. But this should only be the tip of the iceberg. What if our journalists and anchors were household names in English Canada and the reverse were true in Quebec media too? All nation-building takes work; I’d like to think such an initiative would be more productive than restrictive, and would help foster a healthy dialog.<br /><br />Taking a step further, let's begin this thought experiment right here. Tangibly now, how can all of Quebec aspire to be confidently (and perennially) French all while confidently assuming a welcoming, functioning English-language identity which, given our location and history, behooves us?Apparatchiknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7963035472241877292.post-91260225993613961252010-10-31T09:39:03.865-04:002010-10-31T09:39:03.865-04:00Anon 1:39PM: “Nowhere in the world do parents have...Anon 1:39PM: “Nowhere in the world do parents have the choice over the teaching language for their kids in a *public* school system.”<br /><br />Anon 1:40PM: “Francophones only represent 2% of the North American population, that is 6-7 million Francos among 400 million Anglophones. Stunning, isn't it?”. <br /><br />Nice try, Anon. But the issue is not whether parents have (or should have) the choice of the teaching language – obviously these things are decided by governments all across the world. The issue is why in our particular jurisdiction the choice of the teaching language has generated (and continues to generate) so much controversy, discontent, and harsh criticism, while everywhere else in the world it’s hardly ever an issue and in most cases a complete non-issue. Why is it that while everywhere else this issue is a matter of unanimous consensus, here it is not even close to that. These are very important questions that you cheekily shrug off with a "public should have no say" dismissal. Except that this does not answer a single question. <br /><br />So what are the answers? Why the discontent? Is it because everywhere else in the world the selection of the jurisdiction’s teaching language takes into consideration (amongst other things) the linguistic reality and therefore has a pragmatic aspect to it, while in Quebec the reality (which you summarize very well in your 1:40PM post) is being cynically ignored, and the practicality aspect is sacrificed in the name of lofty ideals and principles? Could that be the source of frustration for all those who do not share these ideals as fanatically as you do but who are nonetheless stonewalled in their attempts to better adapt to this stunning reality? Qu’en pense-tu?<br /><br />You may of course counter me by saying that given such stunning demographic reality, it is rather easy to acquire English, and many Francophones and Allophones in fact do despite being subjected to the language legislation. But that will lead to another question: what is the purpose of linguistic legislation that clearly fails to meet its objectives? Is it just to be petty and vindictive and to act out historical frustrations? Or is there more to it? Also, it makes for a pretty lame argument to begin with, because the fact that many Francos and Allos do manage to pick up English does not mean that 101 isn’t trying to stop them.adskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04196014962059056067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7963035472241877292.post-77634683201858122082010-10-31T01:24:01.467-04:002010-10-31T01:24:01.467-04:00"Apparatchik and M.G. completely misrepresent..."Apparatchik and M.G. completely misrepresent what I am saying and make unrealistic assessments that fail to address my points."<br /><br />With all due respect, it sounds like your points have to do with Quebec progressively losing its "share of voice" as a result of other provinces' gains in population relative to us.<br /><br />Indeed, smaller provinces benefit from a seat allocation ratio that is far more favorable than some of the larger provinces. The table at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Commons_of_Canada#Members_and_electoral_districts] is particularly helpful in this regard. At the same time, Quebec isn't quite as disadvantaged as Alberta, Ontario, or BC, which are indeed well ahead of it in the "screwed electoral quotient" category. Note also that Quebec's quotient is actually slightly on the more favorable side of the national average.<br /><br /><br />"Picking on smaller entrepreneurs who, unlike McDonald's, Blockbuster, Microsoft, Dunkin' Donuts and other gigantic multinationals who have legal departments or large law firms on retainer, are persecuted by your OQLF language Gestapo for the pettiest of uses of the unforgivable English language?"<br /><br />I agree that we have let ourselves be taken for a ride by self-justifying sanctimonious nationalist rhetoric posing as truth. Protecting French has deviated from its original intent and has become an Orwellian racket. <br /><br /><br />"je ne voudrais pas être dans les souliers du dit blogueur qui vient de se faire dégonfler l'égo dans les règles de l'art et en anglais en plus"<br /><br />Voilà qui confirme du moins en partie ma théorie qu'on ne se fréquente pas assez afin de bien se connaitre. Être à même de mener un débat dans les deux langues officielles du pays -- de NOTRE pays -- est un idéal auquel il vaut mieux tendre. Sinon on risque de se débattre tout seuls. <br /><br />Seul un engagement envers un vrai bilinguisme permettrait de tels échanges.<br /><br />En plus, ça m'agace qu'une province comme le Nouveau-Brunswick peut se prétendre plus bilingue que nous.<br /><br />À quand une maturité collective culturelle, politique, et législative chez nous qui met les deux langues sur un pied d'égalité institutionnel et sociétal? On se veut (et on se dit) une société accueillante tout en repoussant perpetuellement "l'ennemi colonisateur". Une contradiction faisant montre de trop peu de pragmatisme, à mon avis.<br /><br />Des petits gestes comme remettre à leur place les génériques "street", "avenue", et "boulevard", ainsi que "stop" en-dessous d'un panneau d'arrêt partout à Montréal seraient de bons débuts. L'apostrophe-s pose beaucoup moins danger pour la langue française qu'une poutine qui envenime graduellement le système circulatoire. Des commissions scolaires francophones qui se veulent compétentes dans l'enseignement des langues française ET anglaise nous avantageraient encore plus qu'un organisme gouvernemental dont une partie sert finalement à encourager l'unilinguisme dépassé.<br /><br />Que nos démagogues séparatistes se trouvent enfin une vraie job.Apparatchiknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7963035472241877292.post-79993706150833928072010-10-30T23:58:10.011-04:002010-10-30T23:58:10.011-04:00Both Apparatchik and M.G. completely misrepresent ...Both Apparatchik and M.G. completely misrepresent what I am saying and make unrealistic assessments that fail to address my points. So we do away with the 75 seat floor for Quebec and REDUCE its share of the house, rather then keep it and INCREASE the share of the house for the rest of Canada? I don't see how this changes ANYTHING for Quebec at all (if you cut off your head and stand on it are you any taller?). Either way it ends up with a smaller and less influential share. In 1867 Quebec had 36% of the house. Not its 24%. This will fall below 22% after 2017 when the 30 new seats are added. By the 2030's or so when another expansion will be required it will probably fall below 20%. Maybe as low as 18%. And ALL of this is due to immigration-driven population growth. And why single out Quebec M.G.? P.E.I. is ridiculously over-represented in relation to its tiny population. The Toronto guy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7963035472241877292.post-14777661804599501872010-10-30T21:34:39.291-04:002010-10-30T21:34:39.291-04:00" C'est du pur délire "
Tout a fait..." C'est du pur délire "<br /><br />Tout a fait daccord et je ne voudrais pas être dans les souliers du dit blogueur qui vient de se faire dégonfler l'égo dans les règles de l'art et en anglais en plus.Espérons maintenant que l'exercice sera utile et salutaire.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7963035472241877292.post-54642233303055112272010-10-30T20:42:22.782-04:002010-10-30T20:42:22.782-04:00I laugh at people who call Anglos fascists when th...I laugh at people who call Anglos fascists when they're the ones who are constantly calling for dominance over English and are trying to limit the amount of English outdoor signs. I guess bigots don't know they're bigots, just like crazy people don't know they;re crazy. <br /><br />To respond to Anon 1:39 PM...<br /><br />" You will get the occasional Anglo-bashing comment from your ignorant, has-lived-in-the-sticks-all-his-life sovereignist or the usually reasonable Franco who, in the heat of action, will say more than he actually intends to. However, you will see the exact same occurences from the Anglo side. Need I provide some examples?"<br />Almost the entire French language media promote the sovereignist cause and are, on average, very nationalistic. This includes newspapers as well btw. When anti-Anglo garbage is allowed be published in journals like Journal de Monreal and Le Devoir, you know that anti-Anglo racism is socially acceptable. <br /><br />"Bill 103 is a mistake because not only does it favour the rich, but also because it gives the right to Francophones and Allophones to transfer into the publicly-funded English-speaking school system after a mere three years in the private system. In other words, Francophones will be paying for the near-free English education of another Francophone or Allophone: ridiculous."<br />Firstly, Bill 103 is wrong because it is even more restrictive than its predecessor. People, regardless of social class, should have the right to attend the school of choice(language of choice. Secondly, I"m currently for someone who was FORCED attend French school against that person's wish. So what's your point exactly?<br /><br />"Now, don't bring me the whole ''hail to individual liberties'' argument because I won't have it. Nowhere in the world do parents have the choice over the teaching language for their kids in a *public* school system."<br />Please tell me you're joking, because if you're not than I'm afraid you aint that bright for a Bishops' graduate. You do know ALL provinces have French public schools, right? And guess what else? Parents outside of Quebec enjoy a right that Quebecers don't, that is--the choice of language of education. No one forces kids to attend English or French schools in other provinces. <br /><br />"Franco Quebecers are not trying to beat you down, they're merely trying to protect a language they have been speaking for four centuries, the language of their ancestors, of their great-grandparents, of their grandparents and parents."<br />I feel so sorry for Francophones. They have had to hear this nonsense from separatist scumbags that they eventually took it as truth. If you repeat a life often enough, it becomes truth. There's no available statistical evidence that the French language was in danger prior to Bill 101. Gendron never advocated measures such as Bill 101/86/178/115. <br /><br />"French-speaking communities outside Quebec are already dying out or speaking some sort of French that doesn't even sound like or look like French anymore. "<br />That's because they chose to integrate into the English majority. Not some federal government assimilation program you paranoid Francophones constantly talk about.<br /><br />All in all, I grant you that French was unfairly represented in the labor market, but the language itself was not in danger. And the only reason most immigrants went to English schools was because the Catholic Church didn't allow non-Catholics to attend French schools, these includes Jews, Greeks, East Asians and North Africans whom some had French as their mother tongue!Anglo Montrealernoreply@blogger.com