'Battered Anglo Syndrome' Alive and Well in Montreal

Is Montreal too English?

It's a question that is debated on much too regular a basis in the French media, this obsession that Montreal is anglicizing. It remains a staple topic in the never-ending  portrayal by language militants of Francophone Quebeckers as victims.

At the recent anti-Bill 103 rally at the Pierre Charbonneau Centre in Montreal, the master of ceremonies, Denis Trudel, railed from the dais that if the law was passed, it would mean that, over the next thirty years, it would lead to 50,000 new anglos in Quebec. He could have remained politic and say that there would be 50,000 less francophones, but instead, he made no attempt to hide his contempt. That's the type of nastiness that is generated on a daily basis by language militants against anglos.

The message, that we anglos are taking over, is something that we brush off as nationalist fantasy, it's something we're used to.

While we have learned to live with that, it was with a measure of sadness, that this week, I read a Montreal Gazette news article and listened to a CBC radio talk show discussing that news article, where a bunch of self-loathing Anglo Quebeckers were re-selling the fiction of oppression and the myth that we are marching across the city, conquering Francophone neighbourhoods, hitherto bastions of language purity.
"First we take Manhattan, then we take Plateau!"

I can't imagine any local community newspaper which caters exclusively to Jewish, Arabic, Italian or Greek Montrealers, debating whether an increase in that community's population would be a good or bad thing for the city. But for the Montreal Gazette and a group of hoity-toity Anglo apologists, buying into the argument that a rise in the use of the English language (and Anglos as a result,) is a bad thing for Quebec, seems to be the intellectual thing to do.

The article in question is this week's Montreal Gazette story by DAVID JOHNSTON entitled More English or less French? (Great Taste, Less Filling?)

Mr Johnston tells us that it is his considered opinion that anglos are spreading across the city and invading traditionally Francophone districts. This statement alone wins him an automatic place of honour on vigile.net.

The 'alarming' prospect is surely sending shock waves throughout francophone boroughs, like the Plateau Mont-Royal (Montreal's snobby, self-declared neighbourhood of cool, bohemian nationalists,) where  Luc Ferrandez, the borough mayor, might consider erecting big signs (not billboards) at the entrance to his Utopian kingdom, reminding all who enter, of the district's political philosophy - "No Billboards, No Cars, No Money and No Anglophones"

While it may be hard to argue against Mr. Johnston's 'gut feeling,' not so for his gratuitous and faulty use of statistics.

"I do think Montreal is becoming more English. But it’s not just that there are more anglos around, I added. It’s also because there has been an increase this past decade in the ongoing exodus of francophones from the Island of Montreal to off-island suburbs.Consider: The years 2001 to 2006 saw the Island of Montreal lose 47,650 more people of French mother tongue to off-island suburbs than it gained from those suburbs, compared with a net loss of 6,740 people of English mother tongue and 22,830 people of other mother tongue"

"To be sure, francophones are still a 2-to-1 majority in the metropolitan region as a whole"

Mr Johnston argues that because a great number of Francophones are abandoning the island of Montreal, the linguistic balance is being altered.

According to his figures, between 2001 and 2006, 48,000 mother-tongue francophones left the island of Montreal and a combined total of 30,000 anglophones and allophones left as well. 

Boiling it down, it means that for every 2 francophones taking flight, 1.2 anglos and ethnics were doing the same.

Since Mr. Johnston advises us that the present ratio between mother tongue French Montrealers and the rest of us, is 2-to-1, he actually proves that the exodus is improving the balance in favour of francophones!

These are his own figures, I didn't make it up.

Do I believe this is happening? Dunno... but Mr Johnston is apparently sure. Despite the fact that his figures are either muddled or prove the exact opposite of the point he tried to make. (Ah those statistics, always troublesome things for  amateurs!)

 

After shaking my head at this mathematical boner, I was further dismayed by rest of the article, wherein the author vacillates back and forth over the issue (unproven) of whether more English in Montreal is a good or bad thing. Hamlet would be proud.

Mr Johnston, makes reference to a moronic statistical study written by that paragon of impartiality, separatist and fantasist, Pierre Curzi,  entitled "Le grand Montréal s’anglicise" which employs a variety of statistical leaps, to conclude that the sky is falling on French Montreal.
No thinking anglophone should ever reference trash like that.

The 'study' is based on the racist concept of 'mother tongue' which is just code for the no-longer politically correct term "Québécois de souche." It assumes that those who aren't born from 'pure stock' and who can't trace their lineage back to the "filles de roi," cannot be counted as 'real' francophone Quebeckers, even if they live their lives entirely in French.

"And now we’re on the cusp of a new francophone exodus – the exodus of francophone baby boomers from the workplace."

Anglophones should be relieved to know that according to Mr. Johnston, they can't qualify as baby-boomers and therefore only francophones may be on the cusp... Hmm....

"During my appearance on Je l’ai vu à la radio, author and radio personality Georges Nicholson, another panellist, acknowledged that more anglos are able to function in French these days. But he asked me whether anglos are any more deeply connected to Quebec, as a result of their knowledge of French – whether, for example, they go to French theatre or read authors like Réjean Ducharme, Quebec’s J.D. Salinger. I said no. Réjean Tremblay of La Presse maybe, but not Réjean Ducharme."

I bet there isn't an anglo in a thousand (or a Russian, a Swede, German, etc) who ever heard of Réjean Ducharme. Trust me, he's no Jack Kennedy J.D Salinger. If he was any good, he'd be translated into English like Solzhenitsyn or Marcel Proust. Maybe then I'd read the original French version (as I did with Proust's sublime 'À la recherche du temps perdu.')

The truth is that there are only two truly great international writers from Quebec, Saul Bellow and Mordechai Richler and one international poet, Leonard Cohen and no, I'm not going to state the obvious.

By the way, the French radio show that Mr. Johnston so proudly participated in, 'Je l’ai vu à la radio,' is hosted by Franco Nuovo, that wonderfully culturally sensitive ex-columnist for the Journal de Montreal, who during the Nagano Olympics, honoured the host country by changing his byline picture to that of himself wearing a rubber band around his eyes to give him that 'oriental look'. Marvellous!

As for going to French theatre, there's a legitimate reason why we don't go. 

It isn't very good.... Sorry.

Now that doesn't mean Quebeckers are talentless, in fact the opposite is true. Francophone entertainers outperform their Canadian counterparts, but with a pool of only seven million francophones, they can only do so much.

The last French play I attended, was Quebec's only blockbuster, "Notre Dame de Paris."
Comparing it to those plays that I've seen on Broadway, in New York, I can only say that it was a thoroughly disappointing affair, not exactly a 'Miss Saigon,' 'Cats' or 'Phantom of the Opera,' that's for sure. There was no live orchestra, just a canned music track. The staging was cheap minimalist and while the music somewhat catchy, the voices were strictly sub-Broadway calibre. The only thing that reminded me of Broadway was the price of admission.

Never again.

The same goes for Quebecois film and television, all sub-par. 

That's not say there aren't some flashes of greatness, I diligently watch Patrick Huard's TV show Taxi- 0-22 because he is as good as any comedian in North America. His rapier wit and expert delivery places him just below Chris Rock and above Russel Peters in my estimation.

To expect a small community to compete with the world on quantity is unrealistic. How many Patrick Huards or Celine Dions are there out there?

To expect bilingual Anglos to consume Quebec French culture because they can, not because they find it interesting, is unrealistic.  

"One thing that I didn’t know then that I know now is that anglos are 12 times less likely to listen to French radio than francophones are to listen to English radio, according to Statistics Canada."

Ya think?....See above explanation.

"......the only other anglo on the panel, a native anglo Montreal musician named Paul Cargnello who sings in French as well as English. Nuovo asked him why an anglo, with such a big English market, would want to sing in French.
“The question isn’t why, it’s why not?” said Cargnello."

I've never heard of this guy and I bet you haven't either.  

Nobody who could compete in the NHL would ever stay in the American Hockey League, not if they had their druthers. 

To say otherwise, well, let's be charitable and leave it at that. 

"These days I am surprised to find myself speaking French more deliberately to bus drivers and retail clerks. I want francophones to see that I recognize that I am living in Montreal, not Toronto or Boston."

I think the writer meant to say "deliberately speaking more French" rather than "speaking more French deliberately."

At any rate, I for one, always start conversations with people that I meet in public in French, but I don't speak French to suck up to anybody and 'prove' that I am a 'bon anglais.'

I do so out of common politeness and good manners, not to kowtow.

Radio-Canada Fans the Flames of Language Hysteria

The Journal de Montreal, the French language newspaper, will certainly never be compared to the New York Times. In fact, it's more like the New York Post, a sensationalist rag that plays to the lunch pail crowd. There's nothing wrong with that, I don't want to be accused of snobbism, my point being that journalistic integrity is not high on the list and catchy headlines are more important than the stories behind them.

While on the subject of the New York Post, I cannot resist adding a picture of my very favourite trash headlines here, highlighted by perhaps the greatest and most notorious headline ever written.
"Headless Body in a Topless Bar." PRICELESS!
Let's be honest, who could resist buying a copy of that newspaper?

And so the headline on this particular issue of the Journal de Montreal pictured below, is in the best tradition of this type of attention grabbing reporting.

Last year, the newspaper did an 'investigative' article decrying the fact that in downtown Montreal the percentage of clerks unable to speak French was alarmingly high.

Of course the journalistic portion of the story left a lot to be desired since it was painfully short on details and never quite explained its methodology.

In this type of reporting the facts are never the most important element, but hey, we expect that when we buy these type of newspapers.
A Quebec humorist INFOMAN did an excellent and hilarious send-up of the newspaper and the story. Watch it here. (with English subs)
 
Radio-Canada, on the other hand, is not anything like the Journal de Montreal. Supposedly it strives for journalistic excellence.

The French version of the CBC, is the dominant television choice for French Canadians.

As such it has a bigger per capita annual budget (about twice as large as that of its English counterpart, the CBC) and has a much bigger relative viewership than the CBC. It  plays a greater role in influencing opinion in French Canada than any other media source.

And so, it's a bit ironic that of all the big media organizations in Canada, this federally funded institution is the most virulently sovereignist and nationalistic.

In spite of that, I still expect a certain  level of journalistic excellence, especially on its nightly national newscast.
Unfortunately, last week, the broadcaster chose to go down the Yellow Journalism path,  by doing an exact rip-off of the Journal de Montreal story, this time in Anglophone districts of the city.
A reporter was sent to different stores where he encountered immigrants with difficulty speaking French.

Now throughout the story the reporter reminded us that these scenes were completely atypical and that good service in French, in Anglo districts is the norm, not the exception.

If that was true, what was the point of the story, other than to enrage French language hawks?

 

I've added subtitles to the piece, which is only about two minute long. 

As the old saying goes, one picture is worth a thousand words. The sight of immigrant after immigrant unable to speak French fans leaves the impression that this situation is the norm. Reminding viewers in a voice-over that this is not the case is a device worthy of a cheap defence lawyer.

Why? Why?
Why run a story depicting immigrants unable to serve customers and then tell the audience that it's a rare exception, unless it is meant to pump up the volume in relation to language hysteria?

While it may be acceptable reporting for the Journal de Montreal, it's shameful for a serious national news organization.

By the way. Did you notice that not one Anglo could be found who didn't speak French?

Nary a soul!.....Now that speaks volumes!

I'm curious to know how many stores they visited to come up with this atrocious piece of journalism.

This whole report was a manufactured piece of crap.

Shame on Radio-Canada.

Bill 115- Judicial Guerrilla Warfare?

It's hard to look at the language furor over the passage Bill 115 without shaking one's head in utter disbelief at the drama and hysteria generated in Quebec society by French language militants over an issue that is so inconsequential.

Like the public outcry for a law against the wearing of a veil in public, one that would affect all of two dozen Muslim women, the disproportionate and frenzied response to the language law is hard to fathom.

Lost in the clamour by language militants over of Bill 115, is the fact that the law is illegal and another example of the callousness of the Quebec government, which makes it a practice to regularly enact legislation that cannot withstand judicial challenge.

If Bill 104 was illegal and rejected by the courts, there's little doubt that its replacement, Bill 115, which is even more restrictive, will pass judicial muster, but to the Quebec government, it is of no consequence.

Brett Tyler, the lawyer who successfully fought Bill 104 to the Supreme Court, told all who would listen that should someone wish to test the validity of Bill 115, the case would likely drag on for approximately seven years.
As in the case of the family that won the case against Bill 104, those who would fight Bill 115 in court, would never benefit from any victory, as their child would have already been forced into a French school during the intervening years. It is the very definition of a Pyrrhic victory.

The reality of this judicial nightmare is, that by hook or crook, the government of Quebec will have its way.

And so this government continues the fine tradition of waging 'judicial guerrilla warfare,' whereby the weakness of the legal system is exploited to assert a political agenda that is either unconstitutional or violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Now to those language militants who patrol this blog, please don't accuse me of being a hothead in coining the term of 'judicial guerrilla warfare,' the concept comes from that stalwart of the independence movement, Joseé Legault, who advised the government in a column, to pass a string of illegal laws and take advantage of the long delay before the laws are overturned.

"What should we do? Let's apply Bill 101 to non-subsidized English schools. Of course, an Anglo lawyer will appeal it to the Supreme Court.  Again.  And he'll win.  Again.  And then we'll start the process all over.  Again.  Let's call it guerrilla legal warfare." 

"Que faire? Appliquer la loi 101 aux écoles anglaises non subventionnées. Bien sûr, un avocat anglo amènera le tout jusqu'en Cour suprême. Encore. Et il gagnera. Encore. Et on recommencera. Encore. Appelons-ça de la guérilla juridique." Josée Legault

French is the language of law and justice.

 It's a dirty device, first developed by Camille Laurin back in 1977 when the separatist government passed Bill 101, the infamous Charte de la langue française.

While whole sections of the law were illegal, Article 7, in Chapter 3, was so egregiously unconstitutional, that a high school student could see that its precept clearly violated the BNA Act.

Charte de la langue français.

Article 7; (Official language) - French is the language of the legislature and the courts in Quebec."

BNA Act

"133. Either the English or the French Language may be used by any Person in the Debates of the Houses of the Parliament of Canada and of the Houses of the Legislature of Quebec; and both those Languages shall be used in the respective Records and Journals of those Houses; and either of those Languages may be used by any Person or in any Pleading or Process in or issuing from any Court of Canada established under this Act, and in or from all or any of the Courts of Quebec"

It took the  Supreme Court two years to rule unanimously that the clause was illegal and without force. When the decision was handed down Premier René Lévesque hypocritically called the ruling "colonial, cruel and archaic." He had privately warned Camille Laurin that he was going too far.

In the succeeding years, Bill 101 has been systematically stripped by the courts of its most abusive and illegal provisions, much to the chagrin of militants, who claim that any a law dutifully declared by the Quebec National Assembly should not 'butchered'(charcuté) by Canadian courts or in fact be subject to Canadian law at all.
Of course this opinion would be valid if Quebec were a sovereign state, something it is not, as far as I know.

The referendum law of 1995 is another example of the Quebec government knowingly passing an illegal law, when it disallowed spending by any person or organization, other than the two official YES and NON committees during the referendum campaign.

Essentially, the law had the effect to bar the federal government from spending money to promote its position for a united Canada.

In passing the law the separatists knew full well, that even if the law were to be ruled unconstitutional years later, the benefit to the NO side would inure during the referendum campaign.

Now before I get an avalanche of comments reminding me that Ottawa did surreptitiously funnel money to the 'YES' side, by way of a shady front organization known as Option Canada, let me say this.

Separatists, to this day, claim that the 'illegal' funds, as well as the massive Unity Rally (organized and paid for by federalists, outside the bounds of the referendum law) held in downtown Montreal, made the difference in the slim outcome of the vote.

After the referendum, 20 criminal charges were laid against Option Canada by the Chief Electoral Officer of Quebec, who opened an inquiry into the alleged breach of the referendum law. Those proceedings were quickly halted when once again, the Supreme Court ruled that part of the referendum law was illegal.

So while separatists to this day claim they were robbed, it was in fact the Canadian government who was prevented from putting its full weight behind the NO option. Theoretically Ottawa could have and should have, entered the referendum debate in full measure.

For the last eight years, certain Quebeckers have been deprived of their right to attend English school because of an illegal law. Unfortunately, given the hollowness of the victory over Bill 104, only a fool would challenge Bill 115, notwithstanding its legality.

And so, in analyzing Ms. Legault advice, it's hard not to conclude that there's a method in her madness. Passing illegal laws and having them remain in effect for years and years, seems to be a successful strategy.

I think I would have much preferred if the Liberal government had implemented the draconian "Notwithstanding Clause' to close this so-called educational loophole.

It would have cleared the air and belied any pretence that the government was acting in a balanced and fair manner.

What if 33 Miners Were Trapped In a Quebec Mine?

Thanks to Geneviève, who sent me an email giving me a heads up to a hilarious article that presents a spoof of what it would be like if miners would be trapped in a Quebec mine and subject to Quebec bureaucracy.
Hilarious! 

Here is a translation of an absolutely fantastic parody that was published on a blog called TRUISM. 
If you read French, please read the original.

August 5, 2010
Collapse of a mine shaft in the Amos Mine in Abitibi. 33 miners are missing.

August 22, 2010 
A probe reaches a safe room and returns to the surface the following message: "We are all alive." So far, so good.

August 27, 2010 - 
A working committee is created comprising of the heads of the mine, the Department of Natural Resources, Public Safety, trade unions and a federal representative to discuss the best rescue techniques. Talks bog down over costs. The unions accuse the mine of negligence, the company threatens to move to Latin America.

September 5, 2010 - 
The parties reach an agreement on cost sharing. All that remains is to find a technical solution.

September 14, 2010 - 
Three rescue plans are developed that are designed to drill a 60 cm hole in order to reach the miners, 700 meters underground, and return them to the surface using a basket. The government announces that the miners may have to wait until Christmas to see their families.

September 19, 2010 - The Algonquin tribe of Lake Brunante go to the Provincial Court to obtain an injunction to stop the drilling.  
The trucks have to cross traditional lands devoted to hunting, fishing and trapping to survive.

October 4, 2010 - 
The government and the Algonquins of Lake Brunante negotiate an agreement under which the right of way is permitted in return for a compensation of $ 7 million.

October 6, 2010 - 
Work begins drilling the relief well.

October 9, 2010 - 
Friends of the Black Spruce tree and Greentree International obtain an injunction from the Provincial Court to stop the drilling. This activity could pose a risk to groundwater and cause inconvenience to the migration of geese.

October 19, 2010 - 
The government and environmental groups agree to entrust the study of the case to the Office of Public Hearings on the Environment (BAPE).

November 7, 2010 - 
 BAPE commences its work

November 18, 2010 - 
The Citizens Committee for Val-des-Mines is concerned about the impact of drilling on the health of citizens, including children. They get support from their MP and the National Institute of Public Health.

December 13, 2010 - 
The BAPE deposits its report. Given the urgency of the situation, and considering that the of migration period of geese has already passed, it authorizes the continuation of drilling. But to minimize the impact on the population, drilling can only take place between 8 am and 5 pm, Monday through Friday.

December 23, 2010 - 
Drilling stops for the holidays.

January 7, 2011 - 
Resumption of drilling. The government says it has awarded the company, Mécanex, the task of building the car that will bring up the miners.

January 13, 2011 - 
A Chinese consortium, a European company and a Quebec competitor go to Provincial Court to obtain an injunction to stop the drilling. The construction of the car was entrusted to a company without competitive bidding, which is contrary to the provisions of the agreements of the World of Commerce.

March 25, 2011 - 
The Court rules, that given the urgency of the situation, the government is relieved of the obligation to submit the construction of the car to a bidding process. The proceedings are resumed.

April 5, 2011 - 
An investigative reporter discovers that the CEO of Mécanex is a generous donor to the campaign coffers of the government. Heated debate in the National Assembly, the opposition is calling for a commission of inquiry into corruption and removing the Mécanex contract.

May 12, 2011 - 
Work begins on the Commission to investigate allegations of corruption.

July 13, 2011 - 
The Commission reports and acknowledges that the government had the right to entrust the construction of the car to a contractor of its choice, given the urgency.

July 15, 2011 - 
Resumption of Drilling

July 17, 2011 - 
Start of construction holiday

August 1, 2011 - 
Resumption of Drilling

August 5, 2011 - 
First anniversary of the collapse of the mine. The miners consider themselves lucky to be alive and not working in an underdeveloped country like Chile.

August 16, 2011 - 
The tunnel finally reaches the miners, but the manufacture of the car is late. Mécanex is awaiting the important parts which are manufactured by its subcontractor in Indonesia.

September 10, 2011 - 
The car arrived on the scene. Horrors! Subcontractors have a painted a huge Canadian flag on the outer envelope. The separatists are outraged and complain that it is a federalist plot.  

September 14, 2011 - 
A working committee is created, comprising the heads of the mine, the Department of Natural Resources, Public Safety, trade unions and a federal representative to discuss the thorny issue of the flag.

September 22, 2011 - 
A compromise is negotiated between the parties. The gondola will carry the flag of Canada, Quebec, Val-des-Mines, as well as logos Mécanex, the Central Juvenile Québec (CMQ) and the federation of workers and workers underground Quebec (FTSQ).

September 29, 2011 - 
Shoving, physical abuse and looting at the site: the QMC and FTSQ disagree on the order  of the recovery of minors to the surface.

October 1 2011 - 
The Minister of Labour appoints an arbitrator to resolve the conflict between the unions.

October 27, 2011 - 
The CMQ and the FTSQ  agree on a common list of priority that takes into account seniority.

November 6, 2011 - 
A secret government document is leaked to the press. The costs of the rescue operation is seven times higher than the initial estimate. Groups of angry citizens and the opposition demonstrate outside the site.

November 13, 2011 - 
The government announces that it will release special assistance to defray the costs of the rescue operation and which it claims will not result in tax increase. The Premier asked his Canadian counterpart that the money be drawn from the surplus fund of EI.

December 4, 2011 - 
The basket is repainted, rescue operations begin.

December 12, 2011 - 
Miners are back to the surface.

December 21, 2011 - The Premier hails the success of the operation and the fact that the  minors will celebrate Christmas with their families, just as he had predicted. However, he blames the federal government's inaction, for causing any delay.

Hmmm........

Language Hysteria Grips Quebec

The run up to the passage of Bill 115 (formerly Bill 103) and the imposition of closure on the debate in the National Assembly has sparked an unprecedented reaction by language militants that can only be described as hysteria.

Gauging the depth of the reaction, one could easily imagine that the law provides for the abolition of the French language and the imposition of English as Quebec's national language and listening to the likes of Pierre Curzi, who declared that the law is as dangerous as the War Measures Act, one might assume that the law will have a profound and fundamental change in the language landscape of the Province.

Of course it is all pure hogwash.
To alarmist French language militants, facts are merely an inconvenience and never get in the way of a good narrative.

Mario Beaulieu, head of the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste and someone who never met a fact that he couldn't manipulate, described the recent demonstration protesting the law, that took place in front of Premier Charest's office, as having 5,000 demonstrators. Link
Radio-Canada put the number of demonstrators at 2,000 and then of course there's the Montreal Gazette who pegged the number of demonstrators at 700. Hmm......

It's hard to have any sort of adult conversation about the very real need to protect the French language, when militants, invent, exaggerate and distort reality to the point that any discussion is pointless.

Anglos who choose to remain in Quebec remain sensitive to the need to protect French. Those who went through the English school system over the last forty years are bilingual and almost all of us enjoy speaking French, as long as a gun isn't held to our head.

Stories of arrogant Anglos telling Francophones to "speak white" are so ridiculous that it would be funny if not for the fact that so many Francophones believe and propagate this fiction.

Last week I was shopping in a Costco located in Pointe-Claire, a west-island suburb of Montreal where English is the majority language.

A young shopper, with baby in tow, asked a clerk in French where a certain product was located. The stock boy, of high school student age, answered the woman in perfectly passable, yet accented French.  Neither one realized that they were both Anglophones!

My 85 year old mother has no problem speaking French and does so whenever she meets a francophone clerk while shopping.

I have always loved speaking French and like those of you who can speak another language, I am very proud of my bilingualism.
The idea of humiliating someone because of language is too stupid to imagine, yet language militants weave the fiction on a daily basis;

Anglos are cruel...
Anglos are colonizers..
Anglos demand that you address them in English....
Anglos want to take over Quebec...
Anglos seek domination...
Anglos hate Francophones and the French language...
Anglos are snobs and elitists...
Blah..Blah...blah....

The truth of course, is rather different.

Some of us Anglos are rich and some of us are broke. Some of us are struggling and many are doing OK.
Some of us are students, concentrating on graduating and some of us are retirees, trying to live out our days as comfortably as possible.
Some of us are family people battling mortgage payments and juggling a hectic schedule that may include dragging our children to hockey and ballet lessons.
Some of us are young, eager to build a career and trying to find that perfect life partner.
Some of us are white, some of us are black and some of us are brown. Some are straight and some are gay. We are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindi, to name just a few of our religions. Some of us don't believe in God.
Many of us are born in Canada, and many come from countries around the entire world.
We are all different.

We do however, share on thing in common..... We are not colonizers.

We haven't got the time, the desire, the power nor the inclination to colonize anybody.

Anyone who uses the word to describe us, is a blatant racist and unfortunately there are too many of these, among the nationalist movement.

The current hysteria over Bill 115 is just another example of the manipulation of reality by militants who understand that they can only achieve their goals by frightening mainstream francophones.

In the face of so much distortion, let me offer this humble rebuttal and dispel some of the more outrageous myths surrounding Bill 115.

Myth Number 1- The Supreme Court Overturned Bill 104 
For language militants it's easier and more convenient to blame the Supreme Court for the Bill 104 mess, (the law that outlawed the concept of bridging schools) than facing the reality that it was the Quebec courts that did the real damage.

Bill 104 was originally challenged in a Quebec lower court where it was deemed illegal by a Quebec judge. The provincial government appealed the decision to the Quebec Court of Appeals, where once again, the law was tossed.
As they say in baseball, zero for two.

The Quebec government could have left things at that and accepted the decision, but it decided, on its own, to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. I'm sure that all these French language militants protesting today, were in favour of the idea of appealing to the Supreme Court, after all they had nothing to lose, they had lost already!!
It's a bit two-faced to complain about the Supreme Court today, but that irony is lost in the hysteria.
To nobody's surprise, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the lower court.
Nothing new here, the case was a stinker.
Zero for three.

A cynic could be pardoned for concluding that the Quebec government appealed the case to the Supreme Court, to pass the buck. It would be easier to blame the federal government for the debacle, than to admit that it passed a law that was clearly illegal.

But the Supreme Court, sensitive to the need to protect the French language, offered to stay the execution of the law for a year, allowing the Quebec government time to draft a new law that would be compliant with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This was a lot more than the Quebec courts gave the government. If anything, language militants should thank the Supreme Court!

Myth Number 2- The English School System is demographically over-populated
One of the oldest arguments made by French language militants to limit enrollment in the English school system is the one that says English schools have proportionally more students than is demographically justified. They claim that Anglos make up just 8.5% of the general population yet have 12% of the student population in primary and secondary school systems. Statistics Canada, after a thorough study has recently defined the proportion of Anglophones in Quebec as 12.7%  Statistics Canada

Myth Number 3- Bill 115, will have a profound effect on Anglophone student population'
Bill 115 is actually more restrictive than the law it replaced. In fact nobody is arguing differently. What French language militants are protesting against, is the idea that there is a path, however restrictive and expensive, to an English education for those ineligible according to Bill 101.
The number of students availing themselves of this path is estimated (by language militants) at less than 1,000 a year. Considering that over 10,000 students who are eligible by law for an English education, voluntarily opt to go to French schools each year, the trade off doesn't seem that prejudicial.
Proportionally, for every one francophone that seeks an English education, there are 100 anglophones seeking a French education!
So much for those damned elitist, anglo colonizers!

Of course, language militants, expert in misinformation, will find a way to repudiate these truths. They  will continue to bombard fair-minded citizens with false and misleading facts. They will continue to scream that the sky is falling.

It is the only way to achieve their goals, honesty has clearly failed.