Monday, December 5, 2011

Living in Montreal Unilingualy

One of the most annoying Francophone columnists I know is the insufferable Jean-François Lisée, whose stock in trade are articles bashing anglos or articles defending or in fact extolling the virtues of the Quebec 'model'

Mr. Lisée is the favourite target of conservative bloggers who regularly rip apart his voodoo calculations or cherry-picked statistics.

In one of his most memorable pieces, he quotes a study that concludes that Quebecers don't really pay a heavy price for their very generous social services.
The study calculates the federal and provincial taxes paid by Quebecers in addition to payroll charges and levies and compares that to the value of the social services received in return.
Sounds great, until you realize that the study fails to include federal and provincial sales taxes, gas tax, school taxes, liquor tax etc.etc.
Hilariously the study actually puts a PST and GST credit in the benefits column without ever applying the actual PST and GST taxes in the taxes paid column! See the chart Here
Read the wonderful rebuttal to his nonsense entitled,  Les temps sont durs pour Jean-François Lisée

Another one of my preferred bloggers, is the always entertaining 'DAVID" over on antagonist.net who regularly skewers Mr. Lisée in articles like  "Arguing with Idiots"

In one particular piece DAVID critiques a piece wherein Mr. Lisée disparages the United States over the inequities of income distribution.
In that piece, Mr. Lisée  tells us (quite rightly) that between 1979 and 2007, income for the top 20% of American earners went up 95%, while income for the bottom 20% went up only 16%, quite a disparity!

Our industrious blogger David, added in some data comparing Quebec to the United States and found that during this same period, income for the top 20% of Quebecers earners went up an anemic 10%, while income for the bottom 20% went up only 4%.

In fact, DAVID points out, income for the poorest Americans went up four times faster than in Quebec. Ha!

When not offering a rosy economic picture of  Quebec, Mr. Lisée is busy bashing Anglo Quebecers or Canadians in general.

In a recent blog piece Mr. Lisée complains that there are too many Anglophone Montrealers who refuse to learn French.
It all started with a radio interview on the Montreal CBC's Daybreak show where the subject was just that- unilingual Montreal Anglos who don't learn French.
The moderator Mike Finnerty, talked with  Sherwin Tjia, an artist who moved here from Toronto a decade ago and never learned French. Worse still he remains unapologetic. Listen to the Interview
I’ve been to parties and met Francophones and they say, “You don’t speak French? How long have you been here?” They ask that question with an agenda. They aren’t really interested in how long I’ve been here. [...] the agenda isn’t subtle – they want to be able to come to some kind of conclusion about you, and by extension, tell you how you should be.
In their mind, there’s some kind of Language Statute of Limitations. If I’ve been in Quebec longer than like, two years, and don’t know French – that’s too long. In their opinion, everyone in Quebec should be bilingual, or working towards it. At these parties, they say to me, “You should learn,” almost like a threat.”- Sherwin Tjia
Of course, the interview brought down a storm of criticism, tinged with rage, by the usual suspects of French language supremacists.
"This hostile indifference to our culture is the consequence of the undermining in recent years of the French language in Quebec, as was noted by columnist Jean-François Lisée in an article entitled "Is the Unilingue anglais back" which appeared on his blog. Alas! All this is only too true. For my part I would add that the least assimilable immigrants, the most arrogant, often come from the Commonwealth and serve as a spearhead for the eternal red necks, that ever since our conquest, refuse to accept that French is a language spoken in Montreal."-  Read more of this rant by Gilles Proulx  Link{Fr}

Read a subsequent  interview with Mr. Tjia over the furious reaction his radio appearance engendered in the Francophone press. LINK

Mr Proulx and Mr Lisée both make their assertion that Anglos must learn French to be good citizens, based on a false premise which holds that Quebec is an independent country, not a province in a majorly English country.
The idea that all public discourse in Montreal must be in French, is based on this fruit of a poisonous premise.

I have maintained all along that Montreal is not a French city, but rather a bilingual city. Perhaps it's time to reassess that appraisal and admit that Montreal is actually three cities, a bilingual one, a French one and an English one.
There are those who live bilingually in Montreal while others live unilingually, either in French or English.
That's the way it is.
For Mr. Proulx and Mr. Lisée to pretend that Montreal is a French city because 79% of the province of Quebec is French is just another case of cherry-picked statistics.
There is a block of English speakers, over 500,000, that make Montreal their home. Putting a finer point on it, almost all of these Anglos  live west of St. Lawrence boulevard(which neatly divides the city in two), wherein they likely form the majority!

Insufferable anglophobes like Proulx and Lisée continue to propagate the myth that Montreal is French because the province is 79% francophone.
And they continue to believe that the English live in Quebec by the benevolent good grace of the francophone majority and that furthermore, Anglos should be thankful and respectful for being tolerated.

It is an indisputable fact that one can get along quite nicely in Montreal without French, something that outrages the Proulxs, the Lisées and other French language supremacists.
And so it also follows, that in Montreal, there are people who speak only English, just as it is natural that in Pointe-aux-Trembles there are people who speak only French.

Living in English in Montreal...YESSIR!
Let's see.
My wife has a friend who came to this province many decades ago and married an Anglo Montrealer.
She settled in one of those English town that boasts more than 70% English residents. Everyone on the street where she lived was English. She raised a family, sent her kids to English school and shopped in stores where the clerks were all English, including downtown Montreal.
Television, newspapers, entertainment and dining out....all in English.
Even the repairman who came to fix her washer or stove spoke English, even if he was French.

In forty odd years she hasn't learnt one word of French and still doesn't speak anything but English.
She couldn't tell you who Beau Dommage is or VLB or what Loft Story or Occupation Double represents. She couldn't recognize a picture of Ginette Reno or Roch Voisine.
Ironically she does know who Celine Dion is....
She never in life turned her television onto a French channel or listened to the likes of Gilles Proulx on the radio. As far a she is concerned La Presse may as well be written in Greek, it is of no import to her.
As for missing out on French culture, she along with 330 million north Americans get on quite nicely without it, she isn't really deprived.

Unlike what Mr. Lisée and Mr Proulx would have us believe, she committed no great crime, no bigger than a unilingual francophone who spent her whole life in Montreal speaking only French.

Years ago I made a road trip with a francophone employee, a senior member of management, who astonished me by asking me the name of the musical group playing on the radio. When I told him it was the Barenaked Ladies, he shrugged his shoulders and admitted he never heard of them.
When I forced a lunch stop (I was the boss) at Smoked Meat Pete's out in Pincourt, he asked for mayonnaise for his smoked meat sandwich and ordered a glass of milk. Eccch.....
Not a word of English, not a clue about smoked meat and he lived in Montreal all his life. Egad!

So what....

Yes, you can live in Montreal never speaking a word of French, just as you can live in Montreal never speaking a word of English. You can safely ignore the 'other culture' if you so choose and get along quite well, thank you very much.

To each his own.... Speak French, speak English, speak both. It's your choice.
Absorb the culture of others or don't, it's your choice.

In the world of Proulx and Lisee 'choice' is not an option, it is in fact, a dirty word.

These two dinosaurs remain what they are, arrogant language supremacists and Anglophobes extrodinaire.

Do I support being unilingual in a society of two languages?
No, I've made my choice to speak French and am happy with that decision.
But I will not choose for others or force my opinion on them, either. No.

And so my advice to Sherwin Tjia is that you've got nothing to apologize for.
To those who dislike the fact that you live in the Mile End and speak only English,  tell them what they've been telling us Anglos for years;

'If you don't like it,  move away.'

126 comments:

  1. The following is perhaps the reason Koivu never went beyond the basic 'Bonjour'.
    Good ol' Herr Dutrizac ridicules Marvin Rotrand's english. In essence, the only time these hardliners will be satisfied is. well, never.
    http://tinyurl.com/csd3stv

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ugh! I get the "You've lived on the south shore your whole life and you aren't fluent?!" line. Each time it's like a slap to the face. I'm speaking to you in French, why are you insulting me? Do I go around saying "you've lived in Montreal your whole life and you don't know a word of English"? Of course not.

    ReplyDelete
  3. > Do I support being unilingual in a society of two languages? No, I've made my choice to speak French and am happy with that decision. But I will not choose for others or force my opinion on them, either. No.

    I get where you're coming from - live and let live - and although you know by now that I'm a strong proponent of living bilingually/biculturally (multilingually/multiculturally, even), I don't fundamentally disagree with your premise.

    But how do you balance the interests of those in our society who wish to remain in their respective, secured mono-vanilla environments with those who subscribe to varying degrees of multi-integration?

    Or perhaps is it the multi/bilinguals who are the elitists?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Here we go again. Sadly, this stuff for me is around 35 years old. I used to work at the Pascal's at Carrefour Laval, and some separatist putz was offended that I affirmed I only spoke basic French at that time. Actually, I said I didn't speak French because I figured it's either your mother tongue or you've got to be pretty fluent to claim you speak French. He retorted "why not" as if I had insulted him.

    There was another little putz who threatend everybody English speaking (including a fair number of Jewish employees, like myself) with physical fights who constantly made anti-Semitic remarks. Since he had ally co-workers who worked at that store, I told them to tell this upstart pipsqueak to remember his employer was a Jewish family.

    One falsism of theirs I did adopt, finally, was state everytime I crossed the border into Ontario I was going to Canada. HEY, THEY started it. I just adopted it.

    Everytime I cross over that 401 onto the thumpety-thumpety 20 (now far less often than I used to go) and give my axles the torture test, I feel like I've left Canada and entered some kind of no man's land. Maybe Soulange is just sparsely populated!

    All I know is, now that I'm part of the furniture that is Ontario, I feel relieved when I see that big border sign crossing back into Ontario. I speak French everyday on the job, I do so with pride, I think it's important to be able to communicate with all my countrymen, but don't tell me how to live. Oh, and occasionally I'll be asked «pour quelq'un qui parle français». Trust me, it burns me up, but then again, they ridicule Hatians, Africans and others on my teams who don't speak der low-class joual là!

    Sadly, though, it's what was stated in the last two editorials that I find extremely disturbing, i.e., the ugly language police history is repeating itself, already we're seeing it's the smallest businesses that are being harassed...again!...but this time, it's the so-called federalist political party that is leading the crusade against the pettiest of English that according to their senseless sensibilities doesn't belong.

    Editor, I hope at long last the English speaking community comes forward and fights back to the last man, woman and fist if that's what it takes to stand up for their rights. If I know the community, it'll just happen like 35 years ago. Galganov left Quebec, so who's going to pick up the baton now and run with it? Sitting ducks become dead ducks!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mr.Editor,

    I disagree with your assessment that Montreal is a 50-50 city. I would tilt it more towards 35-65 or 40-60. However, while I am in no way a fan in their made-up fear of being conquered by the English (again!), nor am I a fan of the kweebecker people (far from it) I do agree that in Montreal everyone should speak both languages. You can function in Montreal with one or the other but, at the end of the day Montreal is in the French province and we should all be able to speak French. The ignorant Anglo douchebag who chooses to not learn French is no different than that Franco douchebag. They are two sides of the same coin. I speak from experience because I was once that Anglo douchebag. I realised later that speaking another language (I am a polyglot today) is an asset and not a liability like the ignorant unilinguals (on either side) believe. I'd go as far as to suggest this be a national policy but, as we all know...........

    ReplyDelete
  6. @ Mr. Marco...

    " I'd go as far as to suggest this be a national policy but, as we all know..........."

    Why should someone living in Sept-Iles Quebec, need to speak French and why would someone in Port-George British Columbia need to learn English?

    Not sure I agree with your Shangri-La type of ideology.

    ReplyDelete
  7. it's a free country, you should be able to speak whatever language you want period!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Good article Editor. While you make the point that people should just mind their own business when it comes to what language others speak , which they should, hardcore francophone supremacists like Lisee and Proulx don't. They view themselves as a superior race and their language as the language of the Gods. They have a condescending attitude towards English speakers and loath the idea that you can get along quite nicely in Quebec without speaking a lick of French.  They can't fathom the idea that people would choose to live in English over their beloved language. So that's what we are dealing with, ignorant folks who have a superiority complex (never a good combination). 
     I speak both and encourage everyone to do so but it's okay of you don't, we live in a free society. 

    ReplyDelete
  9. Living in Park Extension in Montreal, I do speak French but will always start off a conversation in English. If someone asks for help in French I will reply back in French. On the other hand if they are the Ici On parle Francais types, i let them have it in English and tell them that Montreal is part of Canada and will be part of Canada and that he can't stop me from speaking English. Those types just get all enraged but can't do anything about it.

    I've really never had much use for French in Montreal. Since the late 80s and 90s, the last 10 years I've used French even less and less.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Why should someone living in Sept-Iles Quebec, need to speak French and why would someone in Port-George British Columbia need to learn English?"

    Hein?!?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Des Québécois au super bowl ?

    http://www.cyberpresse.ca/arts/201112/05/01-4474583-le-cirque-du-soleil-avec-madonna-au-super-bowl.php

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Since the late 80s and 90s, the last 10 years I've used French even less and less"

    Nous,c'est depuis 1977 qu'on utilise de moins en moins l'anglais.

    ReplyDelete
  13. @anon 9:08

    If only that was true. Just by you using the internet it has forced you to use english more and more. While it has helped me use less and less French in Montreal.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "his hostile indifference to our culture is the consequence of the undermining in recent years of the French language in Quebec," - Gilles Proulx

    I love the phrase "hostile indifference". How can you be hostile and indifferent? Isn't it a contradiction of terms?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Editor, you just gave an excellent example of what colonialism is all about.

    You suggest that Sherwin Tija's answer to francophones who have issues with anglo unilingualism should leave.

    Let's see what this entails.

    You have this guy from Toronto who moves in. Welcome. He lives here for 10 years and decides not learn the language of the people that has lived here for 370 years. Then, when the locals criticize him for it, he'd be entitled to tell them to move somewhere else ?! Wait, that's be doing the same as Murray et al back in 1760 !

    We are told not to dwell on the past, that times have changed. Yet, all the Tijas in this city are proof to the contrary. "I move in, and fuck the locals." is the motto.

    I can't believe you defend that guy, Editor. He's a self-proclaimed and unapologetic asshole. He is effectively imposing his language unto others. He's telling us: "I'm not going to talk to you in your language. You'll have to speak mine." Therefore, we'd have to go through the effort of learning his language, but not him, nope ! He's got better things to do !

    He deservers neither respect nor consideration. To hell with the likes of him.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "Why should someone living in Sept-Iles Quebec, need to speak French and why would someone in Port-George British Columbia need to learn English?"

    Why not? In my opinion, more knowledge isn't a bad thing. How great would it be if everyone in this country was perfectly fluent in 2 languages?

    "They view themselves as a superior race and their language as the language of the Gods. They have a condescending attitude towards English speakers and loath the idea that you can get along quite nicely in Quebec without speaking a lick of French."

    I don't agree. I think the french québécois suffer from an inferiority complex, essentially because of religion and language.
    Imagine how frustrating it must be when you know that you're not able to communicate with the rest of the world. Imagine how much worse it's gotten over the past decade, in this era of worldwide communications.
    While other nations make an effort and adapt to the realities of our ever-changing world, the french Québécois are not used to having to work or put in an effort.

    That's where language laws come into play. Instead of hoping that people would work and become more educated (ie: learning more than 1 language), we make language laws so that the french québécois are back on top.

    I think the attitude displayed towards anglophones in this province is one of jealousy. How would you feel if the person you're talking to could go work anywhere in the world, doing anything he/she wants, while you're stuck in this province and a few third-world countries? Have you ever seen a french-only québécois on vacation in the US? How pathetic are they?

    It's basically the union mentality: if one person works harder, then everyone will have to, and that's a bad thing.

    Perhaps one day we'll get over our lazy "someone-else-should-do-it-for-us" union mentality, and we'll realize that more knowledge is a good thing.

    As a final argument, I'd like to point out that the Québécois have no problems with other languages when it's to their advantage. Think Jacques Parizeau and the Jewish General Hospital, think Lucien Bouchard and his mining corporation friends.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Editor: "You can safely ignore the 'other culture' if you so choose and get along quite well, thank you very much."

    I agree with it 100%. You form relationships with whoever fits the bill. I've lived in Montreal for a long time now, and despite having learned both its main languages, I hardly associate with any Anglos or Francos other than at work (where I don't have a choice), but even there my closet friends are an Italian Montrealer, a Greek Montrealer, an East Indian, and a couple Eastern Europeans. Most of my friends outside of work are trilingual Allos, and I don't complain about a lack of friends. In the meantime, I leave the Anglos to their West Island fortress, and Francos to their East End one. If they ever want to come out and join the party, they're welcome. But I'm not bending over backwards to claw my way into their worlds.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Damien: "He's telling us: "I'm not going to talk to you in your language. You'll have to speak mine."

    No, he's not saying this at all. What he's telling you is this: "I'm not going o talk to you in your language, but I'm not forcing you to talk to me either.". He is not forcing your people into anything, since nobody is obliged to interact with this guy.

    Damien: "Editor, you just gave an excellent example of what colonialism is all about."

    Possibly, with a small note. Living in Quebec in French is also an example of colonialism. Just ask the Natives.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Tree Stump: "I think the french québécois suffer from an inferiority complex, essentially because of religion and language."

    Insecurity may well account for the way they view indifference as hostility.

    ReplyDelete
  20. ...to Tree Stump: Things are the way they are because you have and had a government that promoted the three essential ingredients of nationalism: Fear, statistical lies and fear.

    I'll reiterate for the umpteenth time the Francophone population was duped and duped big-time by their two mortal enemies: The Roman Catholic Church that sold the ideology of proletarianism (i.e., poorly paid poorly educated source of strenuous labour) all the while having to tithe their meagre incomes and produce offspring like wild animals and a government that kept that population ignorant and pregnant.

    It's NOT the fault of those who chose to adopt the Protestant work ethic of smaller families and hard work and risk taking leading to prosperity. Naturally though, this inferior majority had to find scapegoats for their shortcomings.

    Case closed.

    ReplyDelete
  21. @Damien,

    He doesn't have to learn French because he is living among English speakers in Montreal and it would be the same if a Quebecois from Quebec city moved to Orleans in Ottawa and was able to live and work in French and not need to speak english. The only difference is, in the rest of Canada nobody would care while in Quebec its ok to condemn it.

    Actually I would love to bring more unilinguals all over Quebec to change the demographics. Let the seppies cringe when they are the ones facing a partition.

    ReplyDelete
  22. ...to DrunkGuy: What you wrote is absolutely correct hence my desire to see Quebec separate. That would be the acid test regarding how this ship of fools would sink like a sack of led! Inevitably, like death and taxes, Quebec would be as broke as those Central African nations and Haiti!

    Any affluent Canadian business left would relocate and be violence in the streets that would make the Richard riot look like a Sunday afternoon tea! I only wish this on Quebec because I'd LOVE for them to, as Joni Mitchell sang in the song Big Yellow Taxi, come to learn that they wouldn't know what they've got 'til it's gone.

    They could BEG to come back (and they would), but I and any and every red-blooded Canadian with sn iota of sense would tell them where to go for money--FRANCE! Fat chance, because France is on the cusp of bankruptcy, too!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Wow, Beaulieu got his fat ass kicked on Face à Face. The two hosts wiped the floor with the old fool.

    A surprising (and suspicious) turn of events given what the Quebec media were doing during the commercial signs debacle, but a pleasure to watch nonetheless:

    http://vtele.ca/videos/face-a-face/lundi-28-novembre-2011-cadres-unilingues-anglophones-une-raison-de-boycotter_37525_37523.php

    Stephane Gendron 3:33: "Pourquoi les anglophones sont bilingues, et les francophones ne sont pas?"

    Stephane Gendron 5:33: "Les anglais chez nous ils sont plus éduqués que les francophones, ils sont tous bilingues"

    ReplyDelete
  24. For all the hypocrites who follow the Clique du Plateau losership (as in you Guy A., someone who has never lived outside of the QC bubble ) - remember what Daniel Lanois did when he came on your show? He spoke to you in EN, and where was the media outrage for that? None because he's from the same ethnicity, which brings us back to the xenophobia...not so subtle eh? Everything is okay as long as the maudit anglo is the scapegoat in QC.
    All Sherwin had to say, perhaps, is that eventually he will learn FR and maybe la Brimade would have left him alone, right? I doubt it...the eternal judgementalism continues. QC is not uni-cultural.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I've talked to many people in the ROC who are angry that some immigrants get by without learning english. I don't think it's something unique to Quebec, so it's a bit strong to talk of cultural arrogance. I think that generally, people have an expectation that immigrants should learn the basics for intergrating successfully in Canada, and that includes learning English. (Or French in Quebec, naturally)

    @Tree Stump - I think you hit the nail on the head when you speak of an inferiority complex. I have noticed the same thing also.

    Could you clarifty something for me? I was under the impression that half of the francophone Quebeckers can speak english; surely with the advent of the internet and globalization the new generation is almost entirely billingual, am I wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  26. "Stephane Gendron 3:33: "Pourquoi les anglophones sont bilingues..."

    Pas à la caisse de dépôt ni à la banque Nationale en tous cas.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "surely with the advent of the internet and globalization the new generation is almost entirely billingual, am I wrong?"

    That would be nice, but unfortunately it's not the case yet.

    I'm sure some people would be threatened by the idea of all the children of Quebec being fluent in english. They'd probably see it as being assimilated.

    I can tell you that english education is not encouraged or considered a priority in the french education system. I imagine that growing up with your parents repeating "les maudits anglais" over and over must not help either. I have friends who tell me that it's not important if their kids learn english, because they'll never use it. I feel sorry for their kids, who are doomed to stay inside this dying province.
    Outside of Montreal (which is always the exception in this province), you end up with a lot of kids who don't know more than "Yes, No, Toaster"

    Younger generations are definitely wiser than the last, but propaganda can be very powerful, when you don't know anything else. So if you live in a small village somewhere, and I keep telling you how english people and foreigners are bad and are trying to steal our province and our jobs, and you never meet anyone who's not french québécois, you might believe me for your whole life.

    To be honest, I personally believe that's the only reason the separatist movement is still going...

    "remember what Daniel Lanois did when he came on your show? He spoke to you in EN, and where was the media outrage for that?"

    Like I keep saying, everything's acceptable, when it's convenient for them. Parizeau will always be my favourite example of separatist hypocrisy.
    Or how about "Loft Story"? Any complaints to the OQLF about that name? But Kif-Kif Import sure got complaints..

    "Everything is okay as long as the maudit anglo is the scapegoat in QC."
    The truth is that every time Québécois have gotten screwed, it's been by other Québécois. But it's easier to find someone else to blame. Blaming anglos worked in the past, and they've stuck with that, since they have nothing else.

    "Any affluent Canadian business left would relocate and be violence in the streets that would make the Richard riot look like a Sunday afternoon tea!"

    Well first of all, it's clear that separatists are expecting all non-francophone owned businesses to be handed over to "pure laine" québécois following a successful separation, even if it means making laws to force them to.
    Quebec history classes have taught them that Hydro-Quebec was taken from the hands of "méchants anglais qui voulaient nous exploiter et nous assimiler" (for free, of course), so why wouldn't it work for every other business?

    As for violence, I would expect to see violence from the french québécois, yes. In the past 60 years, the only language related violence in this province has been french on english violence. Not so "méchants" after all, les maudits anglais...

    ReplyDelete
  28. @Tree Stump

    I see. My vision may have been coloured; after all, the only Quebeckers I have really talked to were the ones willing to leave their province and function in english, if only temporarily. I was expecting a much more cosmpolitain outlook.

    It's very small-minded to prevent children from learning english, it's currently by far the most useful language in the world, and in North America. Not that it means that everyone should simply abandon their neo-tribal ties to their culture and merge in with America's cultural supremacy, of course.

    ReplyDelete
  29. @calgary anon

    "I've talked to many people in the ROC who are angry that some immigrants get by without learning english."

    Yes but those 1 or 2 people don't real matter when the vast majority don't care. Also english is an official language in Canada and that applies to Quebec as well. Its also none of their business whether someone manages with or without english. These same people that are angry about immigrants managing without english would also be angry that natives still keep their traditional languages and don't speak english in their own enclaves. Where as in Quebec it gets media attention. Again you are grasping for straws trying to justify Quebec chauvanist language laws.

    ReplyDelete
  30. One positive thing about the English language in Canada and the united states is that one may speak english and still be against British culture and colonialism and use it for international communication. The English language divorced itself from british culture after the creation of the United States.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Imaginez le Québec un instant sans loi 101 et peuplé de Stéphane Gendron.

    Welcome to Louisiana!

    ReplyDelete
  32. @anon 3:25

    Imagine if the anglos and allos didn't help industrialize Quebec.

    Welcome to Greenland!

    ReplyDelete
  33. Anon 3:25 said "Imaginez le Québec un instant sans loi 101 et peuplé de Stéphane Gendron.

    Welcome to Louisiana! "

    With them, the goal seems to be to try to become a french-speaking Mississippi.

    ReplyDelete
  34. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Editor, is there a reason so many of my posts are pulled a few minutes after I post them? It puts me in the uncomfortable position of deciding whether or not I should try to double post.

    If I am not welcome to post on your blog, I would rather receive a direct message to that effect, and I will no longer bother.

    ReplyDelete
  36. "Welcome to Greenland!"

    Mon rêve!Un environnement sain et Francophone.

    ReplyDelete
  37. @anon 4:07

    yeap all your major "cities" would be fishing villages and you would have to actually work hard without canada handing out the BS checks.

    Sure.

    ReplyDelete
  38. The last word: http://voir.ca/brasse-camarade/2011/12/04/doleances-pour-un-quebec-depasse/

    ReplyDelete
  39. Only blowhards like Beaulieu care. It does not raise any interest on twitter, not even close, onlyu the national-socialist elite in the media and politics care.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Damien said " I can't believe you defend that guy, Editor. He's a self-proclaimed and unapologetic asshole. He is effectively imposing his language unto others. He's telling us: "I'm not going to talk to you in your language. You'll have to speak mine." Therefore, we'd have to go through the effort of learning his language, but not him, nope ! He's got better things to do !"
    Why do you assume there are only 2 alternatives? Is this flawed reasoning what's behind the whole "learn
    french or else" movement? How about he speaks whatever language he can find people willing to communicate with him in, and you do the same? He's not "imposing his language unto others", you guys are. If you don't want to have to learn english, don't. It's a free country (well, maybe not in Quebec). Why do YOU guys feel you have to inflict your views on everyone else?

    ReplyDelete
  41. @Qq chose de pourri : Thank you very much for sharing that blog, it's actually pretty inspiring. It's in my favorites now.

    ReplyDelete
  42. @Calgary Anonymous
    I have NEVER pulled any post of yours.
    For some forsaken reason, many of your posts end up in the SPAM folder. I've looked at your posts and cannot fathom why.

    I have a job and a life too, so I cannot check the Spam folder more than couple of times a day, It may be hours for a post determined by BLOGGER to be SPAM to be posted, after I haul it out of the SPAM folder.
    If your post doesn't appear IMMEDIATELY it is in the Spam folder.
    Try changing a word or two and repost. I'll remove all double posts.
    Alternately send me an Email anglomontreal@gmail.com
    Don't give up...

    ReplyDelete
  43. @Editor
    I appologize for implying you were censoring posts. It has happened a few times in the past few days and I was starting to get frustrated.

    Thank you very much for clarifying and following up.

    ReplyDelete
  44. @Calgary Anonymous
    BTW- When I pull something out of the SPAM folder and publish it, the comment will appear with the time stamp when it was written and may be placed way back in the list of comments, where most people may not read it, having read that section already.
    You're better off double or triple posting until you get it through.
    I'll clean up everything ASAP.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Alright, I will repost then. Please cleanup the other post.

    @Anonymous 3:12

    Unfortunately, it's not that simple. I'm not talking about 1 or 2 people. Look, I get it. You're presumably an (ex?)Anglo-Montrealer, you wish everyone could just get along, and that people should be free to make whatever choice they want. There's nothing wrong with that, I agree it would be the ideal solution. A significant number of people here in the ROC disagree with you, however.

    Find an article online that talks about multiculturalism; you will find it filled with anger towards immigrants who refuse to intergrate.

    To be honest I see little difference between that and an article about Quebec (filled with Quebec-bashing) or an article about Quebec, but in french (filled with anglo-bashing). How do you rationalize that one kind of anger is negligeable, but that another is super important?

    Take it from your own immigration minister in march 2009:

    "Immigrants who can't speak English or French well enough should be denied citizenship, says the federal immigration minister.

    In a speech to an immigration conference yesterday in Calgary, Jason Kenney said Canada needs to improve its efforts to integrate newcomers and "one area that we can ask immigrants in the country to make a greater effort (in) is that of language."

    http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/606074

    Read the comments. No one disagrees with him.

    "I was in a home and the lady said to me, "My father has been in this country for 50 years and can't speak a word of English. She asked what I thought of that and I said, he should be ashamed of himself."

    "Anyone who wishes to become a citizen should have an adequate knowledge of one of our two official languages."

    "The new-commers should learn our one or two, speak them clearly, and should do it before they arrive. No wonder they cannot get jobs in their professional fields."

    To their merit, they say that one should learn one of either English or French. I would find it hard to believe, however, that they sincerely think Chinese immigrants in Toronto should join it's "thriving" francophone community.

    Another interesting article - it seems that when Quebec is willing to apply pressure to get immigrants to integrate, they get praise from the ROC instead of the usual abuse. See here:

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/gatineaus-values-guide-for-immigrants-stirs-controversy/article2259694/comments/

    "large numbers of immigrants simply refuse to conform to these norms, or even function in either official language."

    "The majority of Canadians agree with Gatineau. We are growing more and more fed up with Multiculturalism and we are all starting to push back."

    "Nobody is demanding that immigrants leave their culture behind, just that they should be prepared to adapt to Canadian culture, rules and laws and get on with life."

    "By all means come to Canada, but respect our culture and assimilate, we want you here as Canadians, nothing else. If new immigrants can't make the cut socially, ethically, then why are they here?"

    One or two and grasping at straws? If you still think that, you're the one who is isolated and misinformed my friend.

    (Note: I do not necessarily condone any of the opinions listed above. I am just saying they exist. I myself find quite a few of these commenters to be a bit extremist, and I dislike extremism.)

    ReplyDelete
  46. @ Jason

    Because it's an asset? If you open that door, why bother learning many of the things in high school that you do not use today? Why should learning a language be a political issue? At this pace, the only country in the world more pathetic than Canada is Belgium. Belgium is also a federally-bilingual state and each side (French and Dutch) lives in complete ignorance of the other side. Sorta like Canada, eh?

    ReplyDelete
  47. @calgary anon,

    I never said there aren't people that feel that way. On the other hand, how many are clamouring for bill 101 type laws? Also what exactly do these people want people to integrate to? Its more likely they want them to assimiliate to pop culture and their own way of thinking and life. Canada never had a common culture, it was always diverse and different from coast to coast. They remind me of the pur laine chauvanists I see in Quebec that want to wipe clean all historical presence of the English speaking side of Quebec, including new minorities that arrived and do not become carbon copies of White, Francophone, Quebecois. Some Canadians in the ROC can identify with it, until they themselves have draconian laws imposed on them. People usually change their opinions when something effects them directly.

    Also generally despite these types of opinions in the Rest of Canada, you never had anything as close to bill 101 suggested. THAT is the main arguement. You are trying to change the topic to accomadate you own untenable arguement.

    Everyone of your posts do their best to sidestep points when you don't got one point.
    By the way are you a Francophone? I can ask you that because you assumed i am an ex anglo montrealer.

    As for that piece of shit that said that someone should be ashamed for not learning english after 50 years, I would tell him that he should be ashamed after 50 years that he ain't fully bilingual in Canadas' official languages or being a hypocritical piece of shit.

    To be honest anti immigration from a certain group of people was even worst in the 1980s when visible minorities were attacked on the streets in major cities of Canada. Then they started fighting back and their numbers grew, all of a sudden all that hostility stopped.

    By the way calgary anon, the demographic bridge has already been crossed in Canada. There are so many immigrants and their Canadian born offspring, that Jason Kenney and the conservatives use kid gloves when they talk about the topic. The conservatives couldn't have gotten their majority without the immigrant related vote. So they basically lied to get the immigrant related vote and in the next election they will loose the election for their backstabbing.

    ReplyDelete
  48. To Anonymous7:22,

    You said "Also generally despite these types of opinions in the Rest of Canada, you never had anything as close to bill 101 suggested."

    Might I point that Ontario forbidded teaching in french in 1912? Manitoba did the same in 1916.

    ReplyDelete
  49. From all the babble of the rabble that Calgary Anon fished out for us from Canadian press in yet another attempt to whitewash Quebec, I can bring myself to agree with this:

    "The new-commers should learn our one or two..."

    ...but then it goes too far when the guy continues: "...speak them clearly, and should do it before they arrive...."

    The next one goes way too far as it uses my favorite "respect" euphemism and even drops the 'a' word:

    "By all means come to Canada, but respect our culture and assimilate,"

    ----

    Even though I pity those who project their problems on immigrants and get into this rhetoric, I can agree with those who stay in the realm of "learn the language". But where I draw an absolute line is where the demands start going into: live in the language, assimilate, even the word integrate has an euphemistic tone and can mean many different things.

    Learn the language? - absolutely. Live in it? errr...no. Assimilate? Errr...no. Adopt or consume or "open yourself" to our culture, err...no. Institute language laws and demand the government enforce them vigorously? Err...a big no.

    ReplyDelete
  50. "They remind me of the pur laine chauvanists I see in Quebec that want to wipe clean all historical presence of the English speaking side of Quebec..."

    Simplement parceque les artéfacts anglos sont mauvais pour le tourisme.

    ReplyDelete
  51. "Might I point that Ontario forbidded teaching in french in 1912? Manitoba did the same in 1916."

    BANG!!!

    ReplyDelete
  52. Adski a subi un traumatisme linguistique au cours de son enfance.Son discours anarchique nous laisse croire qu'il est toujours perturbé.

    ReplyDelete
  53. @anon 8:55

    Then Manitoba and Ontario changed their laws to allow for bilingualism progressively in the modern era. While Quebec brought bill 101 in the late 1977.

    BANG

    ReplyDelete
  54. "Then Manitoba and Ontario changed their laws..."

    Beaucoup trop tard,le mal est déjà fait.

    ReplyDelete
  55. "Beaucoup trop tard,le mal est déjà fait."

    Well, there is only one discriminitory language law in Canada and that would be in Quebec. The ROC has moved on to more progressive legislation whilst Quebec remains a dinosaur.

    ReplyDelete
  56. "The ROC has moved on to more progressive legislation whilst Quebec remains a dinosaur."

    Avec Harper au pouvoir?

    Laissez-moi avoir quelques doutes.Parlant de dinosaures,qui sont les plus gros exploiteur d'énergie fossile au canada?Je ne serais pas surpris du retour de la peine de mort et de l'abolition totale du droit à l'avortement.
    Sans oublier que beaucoup de dirigeants au sein même du gouvernement sont des créationnistes.

    Qui sont les dinosaures déjà?

    ReplyDelete
  57. "Might I point that Ontario forbidded teaching in french in 1912? Manitoba did the same in 1916."

    Ah yes, good old Michel Patrice presenting the facts from an objective, unbiased point of view... Except of course you forgot what anon @ 9:26am pointed out:
    "Then Manitoba and Ontario changed their laws to allow for bilingualism progressively in the modern era. While Quebec brought bill 101 in the late 1977."

    A simple google search will easily let you see that french education exists in Ontario today:
    http://n5tn.com/eng/amenagement/

    However I discovered that they have rules which dictate who can attend french school, just like us (I was not aware of this):
    http://n5tn.com/eng/amenagement/admission.html

    There is one big difference though:
    If I am not a rights-holder, can I enroll my child in a French-language school?

    Individuals who do not meet the above criteria may still submit an application for admission to a French-language school. The application is reviewed by the admission committee at the local school board.


    In Quebec, that would be a big "NO". I'm kind of surprised they have this policy at all though.


    Regarding all your comments, I'm reminded of the "I AM CANADIAN" beer commercial (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRI-A3vakVg). "We believe in diversity, not assimilation"

    Now we all know that the separatists and language nazis believe in assimilation, in order to prevent themselves from being assimilated (ironic, isn't it?). But does the rest of Canada agree with this?


    In other news, Quebecor has asked the CRTC to be allowed to broadcast less french content, because it's costing them too much to produce all this french content which reaches tiny audiences.
    http://tvanouvelles.ca/lcn/economie/archives/2011/12/20111205-225731.html
    What will happen to the culture of this province if we lose Occupation Double or La Poule aux Oeufs d'or?!? I hope the people at vigile.net are paying attention.

    ReplyDelete
  58. "Occupation Double or La Poule aux Oeufs d'or"

    Les canadians nous donnent des leçons de culture maintenant?Comme si il n'y avait pas de merde télévisuelle chez les anglos.C'est le monde à l'envers!

    Ostie d'hypocrite và!

    ReplyDelete
  59. @ Quebecker (sic) of Tree Stump

    «Vous ne pensez pas que vous poussez un petit peu fort? Je trouve ça intéressant qu'une compagnie de la force de Quebecor ait si peur de fantômes anticipés. Netflix n'a pas grugé une place exceptionnelle dans le marché québécois»

    - Tom Pentefountas
    vice-président à la radiodiffusion au CRTC,

    ReplyDelete
  60. "Les canadians nous donnent des leçons de culture maintenant?Comme si il n'y avait pas de merde télévisuelle chez les anglos.C'est le monde à l'envers!"

    You're right, there's crap everywhere.

    But Péladeau's gang asking for LESS french in Quebec should be seen as treason! If anything, we need to get rid of english and add MORE french, am I right???
    Damn Péladeau (un méchant anglais de l'ontario, oui?) trying to assimilate us!

    ReplyDelete
  61. I can't help but snicker when I hear a Kweebecker compare "their" culture to Anglo-Canadian culture with such derision.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Vous pouvez bien rire Mr.Marco mais dites moi quels sont les barrières culturelles existantes entre le canadians et les americans?

    Comment se fait-il que les Québécois consomment de la télé américaine et ignorent totalement la canayenne?

    ReplyDelete
  63. Part 2 of a fantastic lecture by Dr.Noam Chomsky on propaganda and the necessary illusions peddled by our governments.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1bIFa_E0xk&feature=related

    The top comment, totally correct:

    "the current government has just replaced the fear of communism with the fear of terrorism. This unidentifiable, ever-present fear gives them free reign to curtail freedoms and keep the people silent and afraid."

    I would now like to paraphrase that comment to fit the reality of Quebec:

    The current government of Quebec, as well as all its predecessors in the last 40 years, used and stoked cultural fears and anxieties to secure free reign to curtail freedoms and keep the people silent and afraid.

    ReplyDelete
  64. "qui sont les plus gros exploiteur d'énergie fossile au canada?"

    Ou vous pensez que le financement de vos programmes sociaux vient. Vous êtes un peu hypocrite typique. Tabernak. Send the cheques back if you are so "pur bleu". Je ne suis pas tient ma souffler!!!

    ReplyDelete
  65. Quebecker of Tree Stump,

    Someone said that there have been no such thing as bill 101 in Canada. So I pointed that there was : the forbidding of french teaching. You find it annoying, my choice of fact is of course biaised, but it is nevertheless a fact.

    That doesn't mean that bill 101 is right. Forbidding french was, in my view, wrong, and two wrongs don't make a right. Bill 101 isn't right because Canada did something wrong in the past.

    So, I am not arguing that bill 101 is right, fair, or whatever. I argue that quebeckers, voting bill 101, acted according to their own view, according to their own interest, according to their own context and situation, according to their own will.

    You may disagree with their will, nevertheless they act according to their will.

    You said that : "Now we all know that the separatists and language nazis believe in assimilation, in order to prevent themselves from being assimilated (ironic, isn't it?)"

    Could we put it as "assimilate or get assimilated"? It might seem ironic to you, but I think it illustrates quite well that this issue is not an issue of individual and collective rights, it is the matter of two peoples fighting for domination.

    "But does the rest of Canada agree with this?" are you asking. If I did not mind offending anyone, I would say that it is irrelevant.

    Michel

    ReplyDelete
  66. "nevertheless they act according to their will."

    That's a strike against Quebec, not a point for 101.

    In Quebec many seem to have it the other way around, i.e. because the majority of Quebeckers support it, it must be right. By that logic, anything a majority may desire is always right, as if forgetting that the majority can act selfishly, or cynically out of self-interest, or out of vanity, or out of greed, or out of the desire for retribution. All of this is lost on those who peddle the "you may disagree with it, but it was the will of the majority" line in defense of 101.

    ReplyDelete
  67. I should add, they peddle that line as if hoping with childlike naivete that we'll all reflect on it and conclude: yes, I've been critical of it, but since the majority wants it, then I guess it can't be as bad as I think.

    ReplyDelete
  68. "Ou vous pensez que le financement de vos programmes sociaux vient."

    De nos taxes et de nos impôts!

    ReplyDelete
  69. "De nos taxes et de nos impôts!"

    Avec l'aidez de le ROC et leur 8B pour chaque annee que vous recevez. Comme je dits, your a hypocrit.

    ReplyDelete
  70. @Anon 7:22
    You said that there was 1-2 people who felt this way. Nope.

    It's a bit predictable that you would bring in bill 101; I wasn't talking about bill 101 at all. The title of this piece is "Living unilingually in Montreal". I don't disagree with most of what's in the article - it's entirely possible for one of the minorities to live unilingually in Canada's billingual belt.

    Rather, I was pointing out that people in general have an expectation that immigrants will learn to speak the local language, and that it's not unique to Quebec. Bill 101 is another thing entirely.

    "The conservatives couldn't have gotten their majority without the immigrant related vote. So they basically lied to get the immigrant related vote and in the next election they will loose the election for their backstabbing."

    This article came out in 2009; but people have a strange way with the news. They rationalise things that don't agree with what they think, and use articles that do agree with them as evidence that they're right. It's called confirmation bias and everyone does it - myself included. It's hard to step out of it. It's partly why I'm here, on a blog with which I don't agree, to learn more. That and I like arguing I suppose.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Okay, I feel like I should step in here and educate the rest of you about transfer payments. It's true that Quebec receives more than it gives, but you'd be surprised by how little it is.

    Quebec sends to the tune of 42 billion dollars to Ottawa. This is a figure from 2004 because a breakdown per province is no longer offered on statcan. In any case I doubt the federal revenues have changed dramatically since then.

    (http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/researchpublications/prb0639-e.htm)

    Quebec then receives 16.6 billions (use this interactive tool - it's quite handy http://www.cbc.ca/news/interactives/map-transferpayments/) in transfers.

    But! This is general transfers. In comparison, even Alberta receives 5.1 billions and Ontario 19.4 billions. General transfers include transfers for healthcare and other federal investments in provincial jurisdictions.

    If you're considering equalization alone, QC receives 7.8b this year. That's only 18% of the money it sent to Ottawa in 2004 (figures not available other than 2004). How would you answer to a seppie when he tells you that you're paying him with 1/5 of his own money, and then guilting him over it?

    In 2004, the "net extra" spent by the federal in Quebec was something around 200$ per capita, or 1.6 billion dollars of "extra money". Of the 175 billion dollars collected in Canada in 2004, this represents almost 1% of the federal budget. The feds, in 2004, "overspent" in Quebec by 1% of their total budget. Is this really what you're complaining about?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_spending,_2004

    Complain about Quebec all you want, but at least complain in good faith and using correct figures.

    ReplyDelete
  72. @Tree Stump

    The link on Ontario education is one I shared a few threads past. It is true that they offer to review people who do not have the right to send their children to french school. The fact is, though, that if they had the *right* there would be no review at all. Ontario, in it's magnaminity, allows for exceptions to the rule. Quebec does not.

    I am surprised that you would be surprised. Everywhere in Canada, education is done in the language of the majority. The constitution of 1982 guarantees the right to education in the language of the minority if and only if one of the parents' mother tongue is the minority language and still understood, or the parents or a sibling of the child in question has received elementary education in the minority language in Canada.

    See full text here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Twenty-three_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms

    Note that the only difference with the english citizens of Quebec is that there is a *third* option for them to receive education in english - if they are ethnically descended from the "historical english minority" and have a certificate proving it. It may be hilariously out of date, but it's something that Manitobans with french last names do not have.

    You paint a picture of ROC becomming more progressive and Quebec less so. It's true that it's how it looks, but you forget that many of the provinces only started taking french education seriously after the constitution was repatriated by Trudeau.

    In fact in Ontario the right to education in the minority language was only officially recognised in 1984, 2 years after the constitution.

    "1984 - Recognition of the right of Francophones to receive an education in French at the elementary and secondary school levels"

    http://www.ofa.gov.on.ca/en/flsa-history.html

    It's not as rosy as you think. As for Manitoba I'm having a hard time finding information on them. I'm getting the impression that french education was permitted at the discretion of the government and was not a guaranteed right before 1982.

    ReplyDelete
  73. @calgary anon

    "This article came out in 2009; but people have a strange way with the news. They rationalise things that don't agree with what they think, and use articles that do agree with them as evidence that they're right. It's called confirmation bias and everyone does it - myself included."

    Actions speak louder then words, Jason Kenney made many other soothing promises on Immigration. Majority of his policies were no revealed until later on. It will be a delayed electoral lost.

    Yes in your case based on all the previous posts where you have been provided evidence and stats to the contrary you still deny them. which means your opinion can be dismissed as unbiased.

    ReplyDelete
  74. I have been doing most of the providing of stats and evidence. Links and so on. Almost all my posts have at least one link in them.

    In comparison, most people have replied to me with "you are wrong! you support a racist regime of pure-laine chauvenistic Quebeckers!"

    I'd love facts and evidence. Please start sharing them with me please.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Anonymous1:40,

    You are absolutely right, "the majority can act selfishly, or cynically out of self-interest, or out of vanity, or out of greed, or out of the desire for retribution." This is absolutely true.

    Since we haven't found any better system than democracy, we have to rely on the decision of the majority.

    So my question is : which majority is best suited to decide for quebeckers? The majority of quebeckers or the majority of canadians?

    Michel Patrice

    ReplyDelete
  76. "The majority of quebeckers or the majority of canadians?"

    In the RoQ? The majority of Quebeckers. Who should decide things like the language of affichage for Montrealers though? The majority of Montrealers? Or the majority composed of Montrealers plus those who live in the Regions and visit Montreal once a decade, feeling out of place anytime they show up?

    Be careful before you say that Montreal is within Quebec. Because last time I checked, Quebec was within Canada (anytime I check the map, I can't for the life of me locate that elusive country of Quebec)...

    And you thought you *got* me.

    ReplyDelete
  77. In Dieppe and Moncton, it was a city decision to impose billingual affichage. It passed in Dieppe, but failed in Moncton. I guess that would be fairer, no?

    ReplyDelete
  78. @calgary anon,

    Its useless to send you facts in figures in previous topics and posts plenty of figures were sent your way. Including by the editors posts themselves. here is one of many links I found on what Kenney says and then what he actually does.

    http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/canadian-immigration-levels-declining-anti-immigration-sentiment-rising-174839725.html

    Pretty quick google search.

    Why do you never answer the points and keep changing the subject? The fact of the matter is there is NOTHING Close to bill 101 in the rest of Canada. There is no popular movement to ban other languages in the public sphere.

    Even when Manitoba and Ontario banned the teaching of French they didn't try to interfere with signage in Municipalities, on commercial establishments, or even try to ram English down francophones in their personal lives.

    ReplyDelete
  79. "This hunt for anglos is beginning to scare me. First, it was the businesses. Fair game, bill 101 is there. Then it was the unlinguals, then bilinguals with an accent, and now our minister of justice bends to the will of a reporter who is a spokesmen for the extremists. Ethnic purification goes on. I am more and more ashamed of being a Quebecois. "

    http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/quebec/337719/fournier-met-fin-aux-conferences-de-presse-bilingues

    Robert Vital
    Inscrit
    mardi 6 décembre 2011 08h47
    La chasse continue
    Cette chasse aux anglos commence à me faire peur. Au début, c'etait les commerces. Fair game,la loi 101 existe. Puis les unilingues, puis les bilingues avec un accent (merci M Dutrizac) et maintenant notre ministre de la Justice qui plie sous la demande d'un journaliste qui se fait porte-parole des extremistes. L'epuration ethnique continue. J'ai de plus en plus honte d'etre Quebecois."

    ReplyDelete
  80. "So my question is : which majority is best suited to decide for quebeckers? The majority of quebeckers or the majority of canadians?"

    RE...BANG!!!

    ReplyDelete
  81. "Its useless to send you facts in figures in previous topics and posts plenty of figures were sent your way. Including by the editors posts themselves. here is one of many links I found on what Kenney says and then what he actually does."

    I'm sorry, I disagree. On both counts. First, it is not useless as I'm much more interested in supported statements than unsupported ones. And two, I disagree that there were lots of facts thrown my way. There were lots of *opinions* thrown my way.

    "Why do you never answer the points and keep changing the subject? The fact of the matter is there is NOTHING Close to bill 101 in the rest of Canada. There is no popular movement to ban other languages in the public sphere."

    Often the points made are completely irrelevant to what I'm talking about. For instance, I haven't talked about Bill 101 in this thread at all. Correct me if I'm wrong - this particular piece is about *SOCIAL* pressure on unliniguals to learn the local language - and that's *all* I've talked about.

    When you come in and start arguing against bill 101, in this particular instance, I won't argue since I wasn't talking about it myself. For all I know you're making a general statement about bill 101 for the benefit of other commenters.

    Same thing about your point on education - I thought I was discussing education in Ontario and Manitoba, you're the one who's making an unrelated statement about signage. You switch topics instead of staying on the one I'm actually discussing. Why?

    Bill 101 provisions on education is one thing, bill 101 provisions on signage is another thing.

    As for the link you sent me, can you specify exactly what you're trying to establish? Kenney said in 2009 that he would restrict immigrants, and now he's restricting immigrants.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Anonymous3:59,

    Interesting comment. You are right. I would say that montrealers would be best suited to decide for themselves. But I will not tell them, they have to figure it out themselves. "There is no gift between nations." (Washington)

    Just should try to convince them.

    Montrealers have not achived the level of national consciousness (ok, something might be lost in tranlation...), nor have they built the basis of a state (translation again...).

    Quebeckers have achived the level of national consciousness, their social group is 80% of the population, they can more easily "act as one" (I am simplifying...). Yet, it is still difficult to achive a majority vote for total independence.

    Montrealers are divided more or less 50-50, and the two groups in some kind of two solitudes (I am still simplifying, both groups interact a lot...).

    Looking at political dynamics of Montreal now, I have a hard time seeing them "acting as one" (I think of the Tremblay-Marel election, I think of english suburbs who wanted to demerge from Montreal, etc)

    And yes Montreal is part of Québec. Montreal is economicaly integrated to Québec and Québec lines of communication lead to Montreal or outreach to the rest of Québec territory from Montreal.

    This question is a much longer discussion, let's just say that nations as you see them (the sovereign countries on a world map) have something artificial and arbitrary. Canada is a nation as you understand nations, yet it is economicaly integrated to USA. (Simplification again.)

    The power of Ottawa is arbitrary and artificial. Ask albertans.

    Michel

    ReplyDelete
  83. "J'ai de plus en plus honte d'etre Quebecois."

    L'ontario est une très belle province aussi... (*MDR!)

    *MDR=LMAO

    ReplyDelete
  84. M.Patrice, I can more or less agree with your last post, especially when you refer to the arbitrariness and artificiality of jurisdictions. This is why I always laugh when I hear that Canada is divisible and Quebec isn't. To me, both are divisible, and as any other state, will eventually dissolve. If we looked at the map 500 or 1000 years from now, we probably wouldn't even recognize it.

    You are also spot on when you say: The power of Ottawa is arbitrary and artificial. I would expand it and say that the power of any state, be it a nation-state, province-state, city-state, or whatever state, is arbitrary.

    ReplyDelete
  85. One thing I would argue with is: "Montreal is economicaly integrated to Québec and Québec lines of communication lead to Montreal"

    These days, the economy is run by multinational corporations, and many sectors are globally integrated, with all the benefits and costs of it. I would argue that globalization is more costly than beneficial for an average person, as it forces us all compete with people who are willing to work 20-hour shifts for 2 cents an hour. It also deprives many people of jobs, as these are shipped to low cost markets.

    But is Montreal so economically intertwined with the Regions to the point that it needs them? I think not.

    ReplyDelete
  86. @calgary anon

    this is from Jason Kenneys own website and current propaganda versus what he has actually done. http://www.jasonkenney.ca/news/harper-conservatives-will-increase-family-reunification-in-2011/

    IF you can't see the link with the 1st link and the rest of the articles, you've overdosed on your confirmation bias.

    Bill 101 and living unilingually in English are intertwined. Bill 101s goal was to prevent living unilingually in English in Montreal. Based on all your previous topics, and posts you have blind support for Quebecois legislation and make weak attempts to justify their positions. When the opposition and evidence are irrefutable you "refine" your opinion.

    Debating with you as I mentioned is pointless. Better to just label you as you have already made you agenda clear cut.

    This blog itself and most if not all the topics in it are about Government sanctioned anti minority legislation.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Anonymous5:25

    Will be brief. Stop.
    Cooking dinner. Stop.
    Children hungry. Stop.

    Do yo have a name? Are you also anonymous3:59?
    If we have a discussion with logical arguments, it would easier to follow the discussion if you give up anonumous and choose a name.

    Now dinner burning. Stop.
    Leaving for a while. Stop.

    Michel

    ReplyDelete
  88. "this is from Jason Kenneys own website and current propaganda versus what he has actually done. http://www.jasonkenney.ca/news/harper-conservatives-will-increase-family-reunification-in-2011/

    IF you can't see the link with the 1st link and the rest of the articles, you've overdosed on your confirmation bias."

    I do see the link ; it's just that you had to actually provide evidence before I took your word for it. See? It's not so hard after all.

    "Bill 101 and living unilingually in English are intertwined. Bill 101s goal was to prevent living unilingually in English in Montreal."

    Sure, but I wasn't discussing that. You were.

    "Based on all your previous topics, and posts you have blind support for Quebecois legislation and make weak attempts to justify their positions. When the opposition and evidence are irrefutable you "refine" your opinion."

    See this is where you're wrong. I have nowhere near blind support for Quebecker legislation. I support some parts of it, and mostly just argue against what I perceive to be misconceptions by others. When you impute to me opinions that I do not hold, of course I will refine my position. How else would you know what it was?

    It's your fallacy to assume that since I support some parts of 101 that I think Quebec is a wonderful utopia and that it's everyone who has a beef with them that should change.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Anonymous December 6, 2011 10:58 AM
    Comment se fait-il que les Québécois consomment de la télé américaine et ignorent totalement la canayenne?

    What are you trying to say? That Quebecers are watching more Tv from the US and not from Canada? Jeez - aren't you a bit of a hypocrite?

    ReplyDelete
  90. "Yet, it is still difficult to achive a majority vote for total independence."

    That's with 80% of the population that's francophone.

    This shows how shallow the level of "national consciousness" is in Quebec. We'll vote Oui, but if Ottawa gives us the right amount, we'll vote Non. What kind of "consciousness" is this? It sounds more like extortion consciousness than anything.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Why do the French think that this part of the world belongs to them and only them? The English were here hundreds of years ago as well, not to mention all the native peoples that the French have shat upon by forcing them to speak French instead of you know, LEARNING THE LANGUAGE OF THE PEOPLE LIVING HERE FIRST. Oh, and respecting their culture. I don't personally mind learning French but their ridiculous attitude and being super proud of stamping out the native peoples is sickening. In that respect, they can suck it.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Oh yeah, I was at Chapters in Pointe Claire the other day and had a hell of a time finding Christmas cards in French. 99% of the cards were in English, and I thought well, that's not right. But unlike certain French freaks, I didn't have a conniption over it. I'm not angry that there are English cards, I just think it would be better to have both so people can choose.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Anon 3:59" "The majority of quebeckers or the majority of canadians?" In the RoQ? The majority of Quebeckers."

    Actually, I don't think it's this simple. I think since Quebec is part of Canada, is part of the transfer payment system, benefits from Canadian currency and takes advantage of international popularity of Canadian passport, Quebeckers should be more accommodating within the province of Quebec to non-francophones. Instead of having a cake and eating it too, like when it comes to issues of accomodation we're an "independent unit" so f*** off, we're chez nous, so we decide, but when it's time to dish out the annual transfer payment, all of a sudden we're part of Canada so gimme gimme gimme. This kind of hypocrisy and double standard should not pass.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Anonymous3:59,

    Ironicaly, the separatists that you like to despise are the ones advocating that we should no longer receive any money from the federal.

    Michel

    ReplyDelete
  95. "Ironicaly, the separatists that you like to despise are the ones advocating that we should no longer receive any money from the federal"

    BANG!!!

    ReplyDelete
  96. "What are you trying to say? That Quebecers are watching more Tv from the US and not from Canada?"

    C'est exactement ce que j'affirme.Personnelement,je ne connais aucune "production" canayenne.

    ReplyDelete
  97. "the separatists that you like to despise are the ones advocating that we should no longer receive any money from the federal."

    The fact that they have some good ideas doesn't free them of some traits that many people despise in them.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Dear Editor I regret that I am late to this post. But you are on to something with your comment: ``To each his own...speak French, speak English, speak both, it`s your choice`` Bingo. That`s it. In a word - FREEDOM.

    If there is one certain fact about the Quebec Libre sought by folks like Proulx - it would be far less free than the Quebec we live in today. There would be lots of folks like Gilles and Jean-Francois who would be paid to tell you how to speak, how to behave etc. Has Jean-Francois ever had to make a widget, or meet a payroll...I doubt it. But he sure can talk, and write, and talk, and honk, honka, blah, blah wuff, wuff.

    Don`t worry Editor. They are both completely out of touch with the free society that people of good will are building, day after day, in Quebec. Theirs is the inevitable fate of ideologues. I`m sticking with the realists and the pragmatists.

    Gilles and Jean-Francois will just keep on talking, and talking, and talking. The rest of us will ACT as free men and women. Proulx and Lisee will never understand the result. They are too busy telling us how to behave to understand what is happening.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Anonymous @ December 6, 2011 9:19 PM

    Well... what business have the Quebecers watching American TV??!? Shouldn't they watch only French TV to protect their culture and language? How dare they watch English shows?! I'd like to suggest a total interdiction of TV, radio and internet in English. This way the French, pardon me, Quebecois culture will not only flourish but expand to new and far horizons. How you like dem apples? Make up your mind!

    ReplyDelete
  100. To Anonymous5:25,

    You said "This is why I always laugh when I hear that Canada is divisible and Quebec isn't."

    On my part, I laugh when someone thinks that we will roll over because some legal principle says that we should. When all is said and done, it usually comes down to which side wants the land most and is most willing to fight for it, the land will belong to one able to gain effective political control over its territory and population.

    And you said : "You are also spot on when you say: The power of Ottawa is arbitrary and artificial. I would expand it and say that the power of any state, be it a nation-state, province-state, city-state, or whatever state, is arbitrary."

    I understand what you mean. It is a longer discussion for which I don't have time now. My idea of nations being arbitrary comes, in part, from Jane Jacobs' idea that cities are the "basic, salient entities of economic life", not nations. It is a long story.

    Michel Patrice

    ReplyDelete
  101. What "legal principle"? There is no such thing.

    Unlike the US or France for example, Canada allows provincial separation. All it asks for is that the question be clear, unlike the ones in 1980 (113 words long!) and 1995.

    People have to know that they are voting for a unilateral separation the night of (Parizeau's real plan), and not for "Quebec to become "sovereign" after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995".

    People also have the right to know that Quebec is becoming an independent country, and not "enabled to acquire the exclusive power to make its laws, levy its taxes and establish relations abroad — in other words, sovereignty — and at the same time to maintain with Canada an economic association including a common currency; any change in political status resulting from these negotiations will only be implemented with popular approval through another referendum".

    Canada definitely has the right to protect its provincial populations from the manipulation of overambitious regional (provincial) elites who would resort to any dirty trick to get what they want.

    On the other hand, Canada has an obligation to honor the will of the province when it clearly and unequivocally expresses a desire to leave, as a result of a referendum on a clear question and the vote which is not rigged.

    I think it is a VERY fair deal, although you your friend Calgary AnonAnus might not agree.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Anonymous2:26,

    I get you point and it makes sense.

    But, as I said, when all is said and done, it usually comes down to which side wants the land most and is most willing to fight for it, the land will belong to one able to gain effective political control over its territory and population. (I was talking about partition of Québec.)

    Let's say that canadian laws forbid provincial separation and let's say that we separate anyway. What will you do? Negociate? Sue us? Use force?

    So it will come down to which side wants the land most.

    Michel

    ReplyDelete
  103. Agreed.

    So what if Quebec calls it unilaterally, and then Montreal boroughs do the same? What will you do? Negociate? Sue us? Use force?

    It comes down to the same thing.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Anonymous4:13,

    Yes, it comes down to the same thing.

    Michel

    ReplyDelete
  105. @ Michel Patrice,

    "Let's say that canadian laws forbid provincial separation and let's say that we separate anyway. What will you do? Negociate? Sue us? Use force?"

    We will use force and we will win.

    "So it will come down to which side wants the land most."

    The aboriginal people of Quebec will also want to remain part of Canada and the French will not be able to surpress them; this was proven in the past during the Oka conflict.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Anonymous5:22,

    Are you also anonymous 4:13, 2:26, 5:25 and so on?

    Michel

    ReplyDelete
  107. @ M.P. at 6:02 PM,

    No, I'm not.

    "Ironicaly, the separatists that you like to despise are the ones advocating that we should no longer receive any money from the federal."

    That will happen when hell freezes over. Quebec is far too heavily in debt.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Anonymous5:22,

    About the aboriginal question. Take time to read http://global-economics.ca/dth.chap7.htm. It is written by two english canadians (federalist of course) who have given a little more thought to these matters than you did.

    And you have to think that 20 years after Oka, it still doesn't feel good to be a Mohawk in Québec. If I was a Huron living in le village Huron inside Québec, I would think about it. And if I was a montagnais living along quebeckers in Uashat or Maliotenam, I would also think about it. If I were a cree, I would think about it to.

    About the army. It is an interesting issue that raises interesting questions :
    How many quebeckers in your army?
    How many will be loyal to Canada?
    How will you sort them out?
    How will your army operate with a part of it suspecting the other of treason?
    Will planes maintained in Bagotville be in good flying order?
    How will the moral of the troops be when their houses (that are among ours) burn at night?
    How will the moral of the troops be when they see that only anglos' houses burn? Won't anglo soldiers resent franco soldiers? Will it affect "l'esprit de corps".
    How will you explain to financial markets that you are going at war with one fifth of your population (and of your economy)?
    Would you still expect us to pay our share of the federal debt?
    If you bomb our infrastructures, are you not afraid that we will not be able (let alone willing...) to pay our share of the debt?
    How will you explain to financial markets that you are bombing your own infrastructures (because they are canadian right?)?
    If you bomb our infrastructures, will you be careful not to cut electric power to the USA?
    Let's say you succeed in keeping Québec inside Canada, how is this plus meilleur pays du monde going to be working after that? Québec's place in Canada is already problematic.

    While you speculate on the number of soldiers that will be loyal to Canada, remember that operation Neat Pitch was sabotaged by a single man.

    "We will use force and we will win." This is simplistic, ridiculous and naive. It doesn't exceed 10 years of mental age. Reality is that each side knows it would loose a lot by declaring war. We know it and the government of Canada knows it.

    Michel Patrice

    ReplyDelete
  109. I'm not the Anonymous 5:22. He came in after me.

    ReplyDelete
  110. If there were to be any war here, I am sure that there are separatists so obsessed and dedicated to the cause that they could pick up arms, but would they be able to rally up the majority which is more dedicated to their everyday lives and jobs and lifestyles, or those who aren't dedicated to anything other than Molson Dry and a monthly bs check?

    Also, if a war broke out right on the US border, wouldn't the US intervene, pacify both sides within a few days, and then establish order that suits their interests as opposed to the interests of Canadians or Quebeckers? While they're at it, they could snatch Quebec's natural resources up north. The Plan Nord Revisted.

    For the electric power, I really hope the Churchill Falls project will move ahead full force. Not because I think electricity would play such a crucial role in a war, but it's high time to shake up Hydro Quebec's monopoly on this.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Upon rereading of the 7:16PM post, I must say, the post does show M.Patrice's disturbed side.

    ReplyDelete
  112. @ Michel Patrice,

    You implied there was a potential for violence in your comment about partition.

    You can't take the possibility of a civil war off the table if Canada were to break apart.

    "How will the moral of the troops be when they see that only anglos' houses burn? Won't anglo soldiers resent franco soldiers? Will it affect "l'esprit de corps"."

    It's likely that the homes of Francophones would burn too.

    ""We will use force and we will win." This is simplistic, ridiculous and naive. It doesn't exceed 10 years of mental age."

    Frankly, I don't feel any less mature than someone who repeatedly states that the election of the separatist PQ and the passage of language laws in Quebec had little or nothing to do with Toronto surpassing Montreal both financially and economically.

    ReplyDelete
  113. @ Anon. at 7:42 PM,

    "Also, if a war broke out right on the US border, wouldn't the US intervene, pacify both sides within a few days, and then establish order that suits their interests as opposed to the interests of Canadians or Quebeckers? While they're at it, they could snatch Quebec's natural resources up north. The Plan Nord Revisted."

    You can never count the Americans out. We have a superpower right on our southern border. In the 1970's, President Jimmy Carter had a secret contingency plan to invade Quebec if it attempted to separate from Canada. He was going to send in the National Guard from Vermont and other neighbouring states. And Jimmy Carter was not a hawk. I wouldn't be surprised if the Americans have a similar plan at the Pentagon today.

    ReplyDelete
  114. "I must say, the post does show M.Patrice's disturbed side."

    You misunderstood me if you understood that I have any desire to go at war or I think that we would easily beat the canadian army. My point is that a war would be bad for both sides, and that things would not be settled simply by saying simplisticaly "we will send the army".

    There is of course nevertheless a potential for violence.

    "if a war broke out right on the US border, wouldn't the US intervene, [...] While they're at it, they could snatch Quebec's natural resources up north."

    We would loose these ressources, I get that part. Do you get the part that Canada would be loosing them too. Like I said : both sides would loose. (And again, sending the army doen't work like magic.)

    "Frankly, I don't feel any less mature than someone who repeatedly states that the election of the separatist PQ and the passage of language laws in Quebec had little or nothing to do with Toronto surpassing Montreal both financially and economically."

    Maybe. If the only (or first) factor was separatism, why did the volume of stock traded in Toronto outgrew the volume in Montreal by 1940s (a while before the PQ)? I have been attacked personnaly over and over, but nobody answered that question yet.

    I am leaving for tonight. I will read your comments later tomorrow.

    Michel Patrice

    P.S. Please pick a name, I don't even know how many ones I am speaking with.

    ReplyDelete
  115. to anonymous onDecember 7, 2011 8:29 PM


    on the contrairy, THe PQ had a lot to do with the fact of Toronto surpassing Montreal economically and financially...can't you see?they are just trying to find a way to dodge the blame as we all know all by denying real allegations proving them otherwise...

    Though,i have to say that the seaway opening in the 40's did contribute for its decline...which was merely minor factor to the cause...

    ReplyDelete
  116. Anonymous8:29,

    If you had read this post about Montreal and Toronto that you are commenting on, you would have seen that the Lachine canal opened in 1826 and the Saint-Laurent seeway (with its actual capacity) in 1959.

    But never mind, only details.

    Michel Patrice

    ReplyDelete
  117. Actually, Toronto surpassed Montreal in the 1940's - long before the PQ was even established. Once the invention of the automobile as well as the massive investments that were being made in the Michigan region began, many companies set up operations in Ontario in order to take advantage of this new opportunity to profit. Then with push to make Quebec more French, companies began to move their head offices out of Quebec in order to ensure they were able to maintain their English operation. Once the PQ came into power and the threat of separation was brought forward, once again more companies and now hundreds of thousands of anglophones left the province. This helped Toronto become the financial capital of Canada and Montreal will NEVER again take that role again.

    ReplyDelete
  118. The politically incorrect reality is that French -- even in Quebec! -- is a folk language. Not many people -- except francophones -- really want to speak it. Sorry, I didn't create that reality...it just is.

    Indeed, in many of the areas in which French is needed for communication, it is by virtue of legal mandate, either Bill 101 or the BNA Act or whatever.

    If French in Quebec were left to fend for itself -- like any other language, there would not be many speaking it save for francophones.

    That's one of the reasons why Quebec SHOULD separate; French is a dying language and Quebecers who want to preserve and promote their language -- without resorting to violating human rights, as Bill 101 does -- can best accomplish that goal by having the borders of an independent country.

    Staying in Canada puts the burden of subsidizing this dying language on to the taxpayers of the rest of Canada. All those requirements to speak French in Quebec means that things simply don't run as well, as profitably, or as efficiently as they would if there were a free market in language (ie, free speech). To appease Quebec (the incredibly successful blackmailer) all sorts of "booty" (Robert Bourassa's term, not mine) is extended to Quebec: $8 billion/year in equalization; positive net transfer payments, all sort of sweetheart deals in the public and private sector arranged by Ottawa, etc.

    Ironically, once independent, Quebec would see a flourishing of English. It wouldn't take long for the powers that will be in an independent Quebec to realize that if they want to evolve and progress that they will have to attract investors, innovators, professionals, and entrepreneurs to come to Canada. And they won't get them coming from Haiti, France, or Togo. But they WILL come from the ROC and the U.S. which has over 330 million unilingual english-speakers who will only come to Quebec if they are able to live unilingually.

    So, if you are like me and value individual rights and freedoms over the concept of Canada, you will support Quebec independence because the sooner it happens the faster English will be accepted in Quebec.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Tony Kondaks, good post. Could you elaborate on this: "in many of the areas in which French is needed for communication, it is by virtue of legal mandate"?

    As for Quebec separation, I always had this suspicion that only a few in this movement really want separation. For the rest, it seems like a game, a way to antagonize Canada and to get money from it. But when comes the voting time, your average "sovereignist" is as likely to cast a Non vote as a Oui vote. It's childish, I know, but it looks like this is actually the case. The Quebec elite, on the other hand, talks about "sovereignty", but in the referendum they concoct a question that reads like an essay. Is this a joke to them as well? What is the point of this province anyways? Why pretend to be all French if you need laws, why pretend to be a country if you exist in another country, which you hates but don't have the balls to leave? It is such an absurd situation, if you think about it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow, you people sound as ignorant as Americans. Perhaps I expect too much from a country which I know to be more sophisticated, well, at least, intelligent. Very ignorant comments. People's lives are NO game, although politics is a chess "game" only in the sense of moves and countermoves; it is not fun for anyone.

      Delete
  120. M. Kondaks,

    The first time I stumbled on one of your comments (a few months ago), I thought you were a strange fellow and, today, I find your comment both interesting and mind boggling.

    Interestingly, a few days ago, discussing with a english quebeckers, I expressed this idea : to english quebeckers, our linguitic laws are more of a problem that the idea of idependence itself.

    My interlocutor agreed and I get the same idea from your comment.

    Michel Patrice

    ReplyDelete
  121. These journalists also advocate that Anglos or those not fluent be identified in their communities. This harkens back to the 1930s Germany where good Germans were encouraged to turn in their Jewish neighbors. The parallels are clear. Is there an element among us who envision a "final solution" to the english problem. History can and does repeat itself

    ReplyDelete
  122. You should look into the danger caused by the French pilots on the St. Lawrence River. They speak French to traffic control and the captain of the ship has no idea what is happening on his bridge. English is the official language of shipping, even in France.

    ReplyDelete
  123. With regards to language, Anglophones in Montreal can be insufferable. There is only ONE BIG FRANCOPHONE CITY (>1M) in North America. ONLY ONE!!! Anglophones have about ONE HUNDRED OTHER ANGLOPHONE CITIES to choose from in both Canada AND the US. I entirely defend their fierce protection of their last Franco-bastion stronghold. If you don't want to live almost entirely in French, then leave Montreal! Go live in any of the HUNDREDS of anglophone cities you've got to choose from. Montreal is IT, the ONLY Francophone metropolis remaining and North Americans seem to be becoming ever-more ferociously monolingual as the world increasingly adopts English. It is very fair for Montrealers to speak English to non-Quebec foreigners in the course of trade, but it is INSANE that they should be forced to live in English at all at home in their daily lives outside work / tourism in their one last Francophone metropole. Why do you Anglophones insist it is fair to take over their ONLY francophone metropole?! THAT is sick, annoying and insufferable!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here's what your comment SHOULD look like:

      With regards to language, Francophones in Montreal can be insufferable. There is only ONE BIG BILINGUAL CITY (>1M) in North America. ONLY ONE!!! I entirely defend anglos in their fierce protection of their last Anglo-bastion stronghold in the province. If you don't want to live bilingually, then leave Montreal! Go live in any of the unilingual cities you've got to choose from. Montreal is IT, the ONLY bilingual metropolis remaining and Quebecers seem to be becoming ever-more ferociously monolingual as the province increasingly adopts French. It is very fair for English Montrealers to speak French to French Canadians, but it is INSANE that they should be forced to live in unilingual French at all at home in their daily lives outside work / tourism in their one last bilingual metropole. Why do you separatists insist it is fair to take over their ONLY bilingual metropole?! THAT is sick, annoying and insufferable!

      You have no clue what Montreal was like before the rise of separatism. It never has ever been in any way, shape or form a French-speaking only city. In fact, despite your ridiculous claim that we are trying to anglicise a French city, English is becoming less and less prevalent in Montreal, while French continues to be forced more and more. We're down to 30 000 students in the EMSB from a high of 250 000. At least half of the city's most famous buildings/districts were built by anglos. At least half of the businesses which built Montreal to what it is today were anglo businesses, but many of those left (and took their taxes and jobs with them) because you and your Franco-nationalist friends are trying to turn Montreal into the French-only city it never was.

      Delete