The Niqab Ban and Fake News

Small demonstration and overblown coverage by the media

We all pretty much understand what 'fake news' is, the promotion of stories and articles in the mainstream media that is knowingly  false and misleading.

One of its most laughable examples is the case of Donald Trump's then press secretary, Sean Spicer who brazenly told a news conference that the crowds attending Trump's inauguration ceremony were the largest ever. This bit of hyperbole was easily disproved with photographic evidence presented by news organizations disproving the statement rather handily. It was a bit comical, but nonetheless somewhat disconcerting to see the President's office lying over something that was so trivial.

Fake news is a real and a dangerous reality, whether advanced by Russia planting dubious and untrue stories in Facebook about Hillary Clinton, or by unscrupulous politicians slandering their opponents unfairly with scurrilous and untrue allegations. An insidious offshoot of the 'Fake News' phenomenon is the denial of real stories and facts reported by the media, by politicians wishing to taint legitimate reporting that is unfavourable.
But the one aspect of false reporting that is never discussed or mentioned is the very real practice of the media in shaping the political discussion by featuring and reporting stories that are more favourable to one side of the political discussion. These stories aren't false in the traditional sense of 'fake news,' but by featuring overwhelming one-sided coverage of an issue, the mainstream media shapes or attempts to shape public opinion.
This gentle reader, is fake news at its most dangerous iteration.

Given the mainstream media coverage, you wouldn't be faulted in believing that Quebec's Bill 62, limiting the right of Muslims to wear a face-veil when receiving public services is roundly opposed by Quebecers and Canadian as well.
The reality is that the opposite is true, a pesky fact trivialized or ignored by the mainstream media.

“The March 2015 telephone survey by Léger Marketing found 82 per cent of Canadians favoured the policy somewhat or strongly, with just 15 per cent opposed. Support was widespread, but especially strong in Quebec, where 93 per cent were in favour of the requirement.” Link

Another more recent poll returned pretty much the same results.

 Eighty-seven per cent of Quebec respondents surveyed by the Angus Reid Institute in September said they support the bill, while six out of 10 Quebecers "strongly support" it. Link

In fact, I cannot think of one other political issue where the public is so much attuned to one position, it is in fact quite astonishing and the fact that the media glosses over this fact is stunning.

The overwhelming weight of negative stories and opinion pieces in addition to widespread coverage of the one minuscule demonstration opposing the ban in the mainstream media can only be construed as a dangerous and insidious iteration of fake news
You'd think that if the opposition to the bill is as pronounced as the media tell us, then more than just the one small demonstration against the face-covering ban would have occurred. In fact, the real story is not about that one small demonstration in Montreal where a dozen protesters stood at a bus stop in masks, but rather how puny and insignificant that demonstration was.
The real story should be the widespread support the Quebec law has.

This over-emphasis on a slanted view of the debate in the media has a very real and tangible effect in shaping public opinion. A good example of this is a story by the Journal de Montreal's Lise Ravary, a journalist with outstanding credentials.
She penned an article entitled "Dear Canadian Friends" in which  she took English Canada to task for "raining down accusations of racism in relation to Bill 62."
I can understand her consternation because politicians across the country did indeed rain down scorn on Quebec in relation to the ban;

Premier Kathleen Wynne was among those speaking out against Quebec's controversial religious neutrality law at Queen's Park on Thursday morning.
“This is the kind of action that drives wedges in communities," said Wynne.
The law, which would effectively force Muslim women who wear a niqab or burka to uncover their faces to use public services, will push women already at the margins "further into isolation,” Wynne continued. Link

Premier Rachel Notley blasted Quebec's Bill 62 ... “I think it smacks of Islamophobia.” .

NDP leader Jagmeet Singh told the Star that he unequivocally opposes Quebec's Bill 62, and predicted that, ....  “We need to oppose Islamophobia,

But the reality is that those sanctimonious politicians DO NOT represent the attitudes and positions of the vast majority of their English Canadian constituents, something that is lost in the media bias. Not one of the articles quoting these politicians expose the dichotomy that over 80% of English Canadians agree with the ban.
And so because of media bias, it appears that English Canada opposes the ban when in fact the opposite is overwhelmingly true. If a seasoned journalist like Ravary can be misled by the media about English Canadian attitudes over the ban, where does that the less sophisticated?
While politicians in English Canada react with indignity and horror at Quebec's burqa and niqab restrictions, they remain sadly out of touch with the sentiments of the vast majority of Canadians, something the media is loathe to report.

Liberal media bias is a form of fake news that is insidious and we should all be aware when the truth is manipulated in an effort to reshape public opinion.

I'll leave you with something those outside French Quebec will never be exposed to, an interview with Fatima Houda-Pepin on a Quebec Sunday night talk show, the widely successful Tout le Monde en Parle. Madame Houda-Pepin is a Muslim ex-Quebec Liberal party member of the National Assembly who left the party because she supported measures to limit religious involvement in public life.

I lifted this translation from a comments section and give full credit for the translation and the publication to  Bernard Payeur who works at Boreal Books

"Fatima Houda-Pepin during an Interview on Tout le Monde en Parle, Quebec's most watched variety and current affairs program (my translation):

I am from Morocco, a country open [to the world] and tolerant. When I was growing up, I had Jewish, Christians and Muslim playmates; we went to school together we celebrated each other's [religious] holidays. I bear no grudges, having lived Islam in harmony. I only got to know what fundamentalist Islam was when I came to Canada. It is here that I got to know the most intolerant, the best organized, the most structured and the best financed groups, with means and worldwide connections. It was quite a shock.

Nonetheless, the vast majority of Muslims try hard to integrate; their children do well in school, they have a future. This is not well-known because the fundamentalists have the upper-hand (control the message) and have the ear of the media. They (the fundamentalists) have become the tree which hides the forest.

For the fundamentalists, a woman must not be seen in public, right. If, by chance or by necessity a woman must go out in public, she must be invisible. She must, when going out [in public], wear her prison and that way we don't see her figure, we don't see her beautiful face or her hair because it's [sexually] seductive and so on and so forth …

It is a segregation [of the sexes] that is done in the public space. We in Québec and in Canada went to the United Nations to denounce apartheid regimes, segregation based on race was unacceptable and I would not accept segregation based on sex because that is what it means, the chadors, the burqas and all these imported ways of dressing which are meant, in the name of freedom of religion, to impose values that are alien and from another century.

Freedom of religion, for me, leaves some things to be desired. We will eventually have to confront this reality. I believe that the state's neutrality in religious matters is our best guarantee of freedom of conscience and religion which is why it is so important to define limits that apply equally to all.

Fatima Houda-Pepin is a former Muslim member of the Quebec National Assembly.

We Shouldn't Feel Guilty over Quebec's Burqa Ban

If there is one aspect of Bill 62 that I dislike, it is the absurd hypocrisy in not calling a spade a spade. The law is indeed a ban on the Burqa and niqab and nothing more, with the language used, a ban on 'face coverings,' a sad device meant to deflect charges of religious intolerance and an effort to create a more defensible legal position.

Those outraged by the ban are lining up with howls of religious intolerance and mounted feminist outrage at the egregious attack on religious freedom. It is to be expected by the alt.liberals who believe that personal freedom always trumps society's collective rights.

Those who say that the ban is an attack on religious freedom are probably right, though it isn't clear if the niqab and the burka are religious accoutrements as they aren't directly made mention in the Koran and aren't obligatory for Muslim women, according to Muslim scholars. There is mention in the Koran of women dressing modestly to please Allah, so I guess the argument can be made one way or the other.

But no matter....
A religious requirement or just a social more, the niqab and burqa are de rigueur in shithole misogynist countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran, to name a few, where women are treated like chattel and rules for 'modest dress' an overt signal that women are second-class citizens.

As for the religious freedom argument, let us remember that those freedoms, like free speech, are not absolute and unbounded.
You cannot scream "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre without good cause and you cannot make overt unbridled physical threats of any kind. Free speech is constrained by what we consider good sense, as it should be.

The same goes for religion, where the freedom to marry off underage children is barred as well as female circumcision and a variety of mostly misogynistic practices that are unacceptable and illegal in our society.
So let us be clear. In the name of religious freedom, you cannot do whatever you please.

We as a society can and should interfere in religious practices that are deemed unsafe, exploitive, demeaning and offensive.
Because of the fear of offending those who hide their unacceptable religious practices under the cloak of religious freedom and their apologists, we as a society have failed to take action when we should have.

As for religious excess, the fundamentalist Muslims of Quebec don't hold a candle to the ultra-orthodox Jews who make a mockery of our society by engaging in a set of practices that should long ago have been banned. Children are subjected to an ultra-religious 19th-century education that doesn't allow for the time to study government mandated courses, crippling their ability to leave the community as adults and pursue a different life. These religious schools are an affront and represent child abuse as we know it. While coming under prodding by the Quebec education department, the community has grudgingly made some effort, but it is at best lip service.
The outrageous saga of the Lev Tahor cult is another example of authorities fearing to ruffle the feathers of religious nuts because of the fear of being labelled racist.

"It took youth protection officials far too long to intervene in the case of 134 children who were part of the Lev Tahor community living for a decade in Ste-Agathe-des-Monts, a report from the Quebec human-rights commission concluded.
In November 2013, about 250 members of the ultra-Orthodox Jewish sect fled the Laurentians town to avoid a hearing in youth court. The group was facing allegations of child abuse and neglect from Quebec’s youth-protection department — such as corporal punishment in school, underage marriage, sexual abuse of minors and squalid living conditions". Mtl Gazette

Nobody can compare the wearing of the burqa and the niqab as the egregious behaviour as the above, but as a society, we have the right to limit symbols that rightly insult and belittle women, regardless of whether the wearer believes it does or does not.
Religious face coverings tell us that men are not worthy of seeing the face of the wearer and that women are offended by being seen by men other than their 'owners,' be it a father or husband.

What university would allow a student the right to come to class wearing a white supremacist or Nazi T-shirt? What business would allow an employee the free speech to wear an antisemitic outfit while serving customers?
Burqas and niqabs aren't benign symbols of faith, they are symbols of female oppression regardless of whether the wearer believes it an instrument of modesty.
It amazes me how liberals and feminists are all for free speech and expression, as long as it doesn't offend their liberal values.
Try going to school with an anti-vaccine t-shirt or a 'Black Lives Don't Matter' pin and see how fast liberals mobilize to remove the offending messages under the guise that the symbolism make them feel unsafe.
Liberals will argue that the head coverings are innocent devices of modesty, a clever ploy which is meant to deflect criticism. I wonder if a woman wearing a T-shirt that says "Property of my Husband" would be given the same consideration if she argued that it is just a symbol of her devotion to her family.

The real underlying message of the niqab and burqa is subjugation and misogyny and for this reason, many other countries, including Muslim-majority countries are now taking a stand.

Let liberals blather on about freedom of choice and religion, they are bullshitters extraordinaire.  They are the first to propose bans on symbols and indeed speech that they find offensive.

Quebec has said that the religious head coverings are a religious practice that its society finds collectively offensive because of its overt message of misogyny.
Don't feel bad about the face-covering ban, feel empowered that we are indeed taking a stand to limit religious oppression of women.

Montreal Mayor Coderre Rewrites History

Watching Montreal's mayor wax poetic over the new Montreal flag that now includes a reference to the native contribution to the establishment and development of Montreal should have citizens asking if the good mayor is completely off his rocker.

But before we get into it, let's start with his latest fantasy, the purported attempt by Montreal to lure Amazon to open it's second major office and distribution centre in Montreal, a possibility about as likely as Donald Trump opening a second White House in Montreal.
Other fantasies include the Mayor's assertion that he would impose a tax on  Netflix, something completely out of his purview.

I'm not sure if Denis Coderre is playing with a full deck or is dastardly clever in telling Montrealers that there is a chance Amazon will choose Quebec for a distribution centre when just about every national and international retailer has decided to service its Quebec retail locations from nearby Ontario.
Taxes, language and labour laws, red tape, higher salaries and militant unionism have retailers running for the hills, or in this case, the Ontario border and with good reason. What sane company would make the decision to put its distribution centre, the heart of company operations, in such an inhospitable environment.

Instead of attracting distribution and manufacturing centres, Montreal and Quebec are bleeding jobs not only to Mexico but even to the USA, as in the case of Electrolux which moved it's factory to Memphis, Tennessee, taking over a thousand jobs with them. Old Dutch closed its ageing potato chip plant in Lachine and will service Quebec through its New Brunswick plant which was, unlike the Quebec facility, recently modernized.

Walmart has long serviced it's Quebec stores from Cornwall and has acquired a second distribution centre in that city, the former Target distribution centre which also serviced its Quebec stores from there during its short run in Quebec.
Canadian Tire distributes into Quebec from its facility in Brampton Ontario, while Home Depot services Quebec through its Ontario distribution centre in Vaughn, Ontario.
Loblaws is also rumoured to be in the process of moving the Montreal distribution centre it inherited from Provigo to Cornwall as well.
Hudson's Bay has built a national state of the art ultra-modern robotized e-commerce distribution centre in Scarborough, Ontario to fulfil orders across Canada, including Quebec.
Lowe's hardware stores which recently took over the Quebec-based Rona hardware chain made the political promise to keep the Rona distribution centre in Boucherville, but like Air Canada's "Montreal' head office, it will probably take a few years for everything to migrate over to Ontario, in this case, to the state-of-the-art facility in Milton, Ontario.

At any rate, our clueless idiot mayor made another empty grand gesture in adding a Native symbol to the City of Montreal flag.

"Indigenous Peoples have made important contributions to Montréal’s history, development, economy and culture."

There are many historical myths, like the untrue fact that Nero fiddled while Rome burned or that Marie Antoinette uttered that famous first troll "let them eat cake!"
Isaac Newton was never hit in the head by a falling apple and Napoleon wasn't particularly short.
So too is the myth that Indians contributed significantly or in fact positively to the founding or development of Ville Marie which developed into the City of Montreal.
Sometimes, history is a bitch.

Throughout the latter half of the 17th century, the Iroquois tribes and their English allies fought a bloody and vicious campaign against the French and their allies, the Hurons and Algonquians.
In fact, the symbol chosen to be on the Montreal flag is the Iroquoian white pine which makes absolutely no sense because it was the Iroquois who were mortal enemies of the French and the colony that developed into Montreal. Supported by the English, they savagely attacked the fledgeling French colony for more than fifty years trying to wrest away control of the fur trade.
Perhaps the most important attack occurred in 1689 when Mohawks (part of the Iroquois Confederacy) attacked the 375 person colony of Lachine killing many.

"The Lachine massacre, part of the Beaver Wars, occurred when 1,500 Mohawk warriors attacked by surprise the small, 375-inhabitant, settlement of Lachine, New France, at the lower end of Montreal Island on the morning of August 5, 1689. The attack was precipitated by growing Iroquois dissatisfaction with the increased French incursions into their territory, and was encouraged by the settlers of New England as a way to leverage power against New France during King William's War."

"Surviving prisoners of the Lachine massacre reported that 48 of their colleagues were tortured, burned and eaten shortly after being taken captive." Wikipedia

Now I'm not choosing sides, it was a mercantile war fought over fur and both sides were particularly cruel with both sides killing civilians, including women and children, as was the bloody norm in the conduct of war at that time.
But to infer that natives had a lot of positive influence on the development of Montreal is pure unadulterated fantasy.
The natives who survive today around Montreal in Chateauguay and Two Mountains are the Mohawks, sworn historical enemies of the French and that by the way, is why they speak English and still remain hostile to the French majority.

The native presence in Montreal and its ancestral predecessor was always negligible and remains so today. Less than half of one percent of Montreal is native and this number represents a historical high.
Those surviving Mohawks who live on reservations in Oka and Chateauguay are the descendants of those natives who fought tooth and nail against New France.
I am in no way knocking the Natives, they and the white allies fought a protracted and bloody war over fur, that's all.

There's no doubt that the Natives were unfortunate victims of the colonizers and contact with the European settlers, be they English, French or Dutch was disastrous.
Not only were their numbers decimated by over 60% by disease imported from Europe, the juggernaut of European expansion left Natives on the losing end of every single treaty that they were coerced to accept. In fact, part of the Great Peace Treaty of Montreal in 1701 was the acceptance by the Natives of Jesuit priests and their forced conversion.
Nope, the treatment of Natives over the centuries hasn't been kind, and time hasn't been generous to them. Today natives find themselves embattled and embittered, stuck in poverty and indolence. Representing 4% of the Canadian population, natives represent 25% of the federal prison population. Of Canada's female federal prison population, 40% are native.
It's a sad state of affairs and one can understand the guilt most Canadians feel over a most unfortunate situation, but the answer is not in the Liberal program of throwing resources down the money pit of the reservation system. There needs to be a fresh approach, but that is for another post.

Notwithstanding, including an aboriginal symbol on the flag of Montreal out of guilt, creating the myth that Natives made a significant contribution to the city is pure fantasy that belittles the contributions of the real founding elements, the French, English, Irish and Scots.

But hey, our mayor already is in fantasy land.

Netflix... Quebec Demands English Pay Their Bills

All the anger and bluster coming out of Quebec over the federal government's 'deal' with Netflix that allows the American media giant to avoid paying the GST and PST taxes is really just a smokescreen over frustration that Netflix Canada doesn't have a French version with zero plans to provide French programming in the future.
In fact, the way Netflix operates is a complete anathema to French culture defenders. While the content is almost all English, subtitles are provided in the French language and Francophones can choose and load English content via a French interface.

The tax complaint is a false flag, and listening to Quebecers whine that Netflix doesn't collect the PST and GST taxes belies the fact that it won't be Netflix paying, but consumers.
Only in Quebec can consumers demand that taxes be applied and since Netflix hasn't been ordered to collect these taxes, perhaps the Quebec government can send a letter to subscribers asking them to pony up the provincial sales tax voluntarily, since so many have publicly complained that they want to pay.
How's that for stupidity!
No, the real bugbear is that Netflix cracked the entrenched media monopoly that has English Canadians paying hundreds of millions of dollars to subsidize French programming.

Quebec language and culture hawks are fuming that Netflix doesn't pay into the Canada Media Fund, the $360 million slush fund used to finance Canadian media content.
The fund is used to finance TV shows made in Canada and is split into English, French and Aboriginal programming.
The French side receives almost half the funding that the English side does, but with 22% of the Canadian population, paying less than 20% of the taxes, it means that English taxpayers are overpaying for French content to the tune of $60 million a year.
The situation is even more striking at the CBC where the billion dollar budget is split 60%-40%, meaning that out of Radio-Canada's $400 million budget, English Canadians are contributing $200 million extra to fund the French language network.
All this is viewed as completely fair in Quebec, some even arguing that the split should be fifty/fifty, in order to provide Francophones with equal quality programming, regardless of who pays for it.

The fact that Netflix is English irks French language and cultural defenders to no end and the fact that Quebec can't force Netflix to produce French content is viewed as giving English Canadians an unfair content advantage.
And so the announcement that Netflix will invest $500 million in "Canadian" content infuriates Quebec politicians because that investment will produce English language programming that can be viewed across the world.
The idea that Netflix would be forced to produce French language content made in Quebec is laughable because the shows could be viewed only in the minuscule Franco-Canadian market in the original Quebecois French. Even viewers in France would probably watch those shows with subtitles because like Haitian Creole, Quebec French is particularly difficult and hard on the French ear.
I remember a reporter in Paris telling Eugenie Bouchard that her spoken French with a distinctly Anglo-Canadian accent was much more pleasing as opposed to the perceived harsh Quebecois French. Ouch, that's gotta hurt!

At any rate, if the French world needs subtitles to understand Quebecois content, then the content may as well be provided in English with French sub-titles  The idea floated by Quebec politicians that Netflix should be forced to produce Quebecois French content is based on the tried and true Canadian model of having 'les autres' pay for Quebec French content, something Netflix is having none of.
Such is the fantasy world of French language culture and language defenders who believe that it is the place of English Canadians and American networks to subsidize at a loss, Quebec French content.

And so the Quebec government is declaring war on Netflix much in the same way it did with Uber, attempting to impose ridiculous regulation in the hope that Netflix will fold just as Uber is in the process of doing.

It remains to be seen if Uber actually leaves Quebec because of the regulatory onslaught. If so we will be left with a rotten taxi industry that refuses to modernize because to do so would destroy their 'cash' business where practically every single taxi driver in Quebec underpays his or her taxes, by failing to declare cash fares.
This while the entrenched taxi scofflaw industry complains about Uber not paying their fair share of taxes, prompting the Quebec revenue department to raid Uber's Quebec office in search of under-declarations.

But Netflix is not Uber, it is vastly richer and more powerful, with unlimited financial resources that could tie up Quebec in protracted legal procedures that would last a decade.

The Canadian government's sweetheart deal with Netflix makes sense given the fact that Canada is in sensitive negotiations with the United States over NAFTA and where access to the Canadian market by American media giants can become a thorny issue.
Let us remember the furor put up by entrenched Canadian media giants who bound together to force the government to abandon a proposed bandwidth sale to Verizon, fearing the threat that the American giant would begin operations in Canada.

This 'bigger' picture means nothing to Quebec, its legislature angrily passing a unanimous motion demanding Netflix collect the Quebec provincial sales tax, denoting Quebec's rage over Netflix disregard to Quebec sensitivities.
This united outrage by Quebec politicians over sales tax is comical in that Netflix revenues in Quebec are not that significant. Of the estimated 5 million Canadian Netflix subscribers, it is estimated that only about 500,000 are located in Quebec paying an estimated $60 million dollars a year in subscription fees. Applying the provincial sales tax would bring in a whopping $6 million dollars, a pittance, which would contribute less than one thousand of one percent of the annual Quebec budget.

The self-righteous blather about 'fairness' and 'level playing fields' spouted by Quebec politicians and media scions like Pierre-Karl Péladeau would be laughable if not so sad.
Quebec has forever lobbied for and defended its right to lop-sided subsidies and special treatment and the very last thing they would want is a level playing field.

Why Quebec Hates Netflix

Last week Pierre-Karl Péladeau unleashed a blistering attack on Netflix complaining that the American giant doesn't play by 'Quebec' rules. Hilariously, he complained that the Internet service doesn't collect sales tax robbing the Quebec and Canadian government of valuable revenue.

"Everybody should be treated the same way. We're all paying our taxes. All services and goods sold in Canada are taxed. Why would you have exceptions?"

First of all, not all services and goods in Canada are taxed, but that is hardly the point.
Péladeau wasn't acting like a politician protecting the interests of citizens, but rather a private businessman trying to protect his turf. Do any of you believe he cares about taxes collected, or rather the fact that not collecting taxes on Netflix makes the product more accessible. He also whined over the fact that Netflix doesn't pay into the $350 million dollar media fund that is funded by a tax on Canadian media. As is the case in most subsidy programs run by Ottawa, francophones benefit over and above the proportion that numbers would suggest. With 22% of the Canadian population, French productions account for 33% of the fund's spending, a 50% overreach.

But all this is crocodile tears, the real fly in the ointment for the Quebec government and French language militants, in particular, is the perceived pernicious influence Netflix is having in Quebec and the fact that the Quebec government cannot regulate its content.
Quebec is the champion regulator, using its power to control industry through a myriad of bureaucratic rules and red tape, meant to control business in order to protect its turf and direct development or in many cases, curtail development and innovation as in the case of Uber. Quebec followed its tried and true method of stifling outside innovation by squeezing Uber through a bureaucratic nightmare to the point that it just gave up and announced that it is quitting Quebec, much to the glee of the entrenched powers that be and a taxi industry that just couldn't compete.

At any rate, the real problem for Quebec with Netflix is not taxes or contributions to media funds, it is that the service is available in English only and that Quebec cannot impose Bill 101, content rules or any other regulation at all.
One would think that its influence amongst francophone Quebec viewers would be minimal given its programming is overwhelmingly in English, but incredibly that isn't the case.
While Netflix has penetrated about 40% of English Canadian homes, it has also become popular in about 20% of francophone homes, an incredible number that is growing.

When I first heard the number I was skeptical, because watching television and movies in another language doesn't just require bilingualism, but a high level of bilingualism and although about 45% of francophone Quebecers consider themselves bilingual, ordering breakfast in English doesn't require the level of comprehension that watching a show in English does.

I asked some of my francophone friends about Netflix and had my eyes opened as to why so many francophones, even those without good English are subscribing.

First, the interface that allows you to maneuver through the available programming is offered in multiple languages, including French, so no English is not required to find your programming.

Second is the fact that French subtitles are furnished (as well as other languages) and while not perfect, it allows those without the necessary language skills to enjoy the latest original programming that is unavailable in the local French media. It is the only way francophones can stay current with the newest episodes of House of Cards, Ozark, Orange is the New Black, Stranger Things, etc. etc.

All this has Quebec language militants seeing red because for too long Quebec francophones were prisoners to the likes of local media that produce original French-language programming and Quebec versions of American game shows. More importantly, local French media controlled all the dubbed versions of American television series.

I myself have been watching a Russian and Chinese series on Netflix and after eight or nine shows have picked up a bit of Russian.
More importantly is the transfer of culture. Watching the Russian television series  "The Sniffer"  exposed me to modern life in Russia. The same goes for a Chinese program called "When a Snail Falls in Love" and the Mexican series called "Ingobernable."

Years ago, francophone teens were exposed to English via video games offered exclusively in English, something that the Quebec government shut down quickly, forcing producers to offer French versions, something they cannot do with Netflix, much to their consternation.
And so Netflix is probably contributing more to the teaching of English to Quebec francophones than any private language school or public school teaching English as a second language. As francophones consume English programming, they become more and more interested in a world outside Quebec and that dear friends is what is scaring the crap out of language militants who have always desired to keep Quebec francophones 'barefoot and pregnant' or in other words, prisoners of language and culture.

Now in a brilliant move, Netflix announced that it will be spending half a billion dollars on Canadian produced content over the next few years, content that will be of the highest quality, since it will be shown across the entire Netflix network, unlike the crapola produced by the Canada Media Fund which is mired in mediocrity because it provides basically free money that has to be spent.

Of course, the bugbear in all this is that the Canadian content Netflix will be produced exclusively in English, providing stories and themes across the English experience, not something that is easy to swallow amongst the powers that be and language nationalists.

And so Netflix is the latest enemy of Quebec bureaucrats and language militants with seemingly no solution to Quebec's "Netflix problem." since Ottawa has already indicated that it will not attack Netflix over taxes and seems eminently satisfied with Netflix's announcement of Canadian content.

Emboldened by its victory over Uber, Quebec politicians are eager to take on Netflix but are sadly coming to the realization that they are outgunned and outsmarted.
While the powers that be are enraged that they are helpless to defeat Netflix, Quebec francophones are rushing to exploit their new-found liberation and that is a good thing.