Bill 101- You Can't always Get What You Want

I am always amused by those who deem that it is not only reasonable but desirable to legislate social behaviour, as if personal choice is something repugnant, and that the public, like an untamed horse, needs to be whipped into submission and obedience for the greater societal good.

Much to the consternation of these social engineers, state intervention into social issues and personal choice seldom works. As Woody Allen told us about falling in love with his step-daughter,... The  heart wants what the heart wants.

Perhaps the best example of misguided social engineering is the desire by environmentalists to ban the sale of bottled water, despite the fact that people want to buy the product.
To social engineers, the product is stupid and environmentally wasteful and as such should be banned.
But what would be the reaction to such a ban?
Would consumers run to the water fountains instead?
Would they accept as an alternative, begging at the fast food counter for a Styrofoam cup of tepid tap water, in lieu of a sanitary and perfectly chilled bottle of purchased water?
The reality is that such a ban would probably increase the amount of soft drinks or juices sold, a disastrous and unintended consequence of deciding for others how they must act.

No society in North America compares with Quebec when it come to government social engineers telling citizens how they must act, think and function.  Front and center in the pursuit of state mandated behaviour is the foulest of all agencies, the Office québécois de la langue française, otherwise known as the OQLF.

Last week an article published in La Presse complained that certain retailers were contravening Bill 101 by not offering a French language website comparable to that offered in English. Link{Fr} .

The article named a few companies but particularly singled out Urban Outfitters because it services Canadian customers from an American website which is unilingually English, something that Bill 101 forbids. (or so the newspaper article concludes)

So why has the company not been fined or otherwise punished by the OQLF over the last four or five years?

Quite simply, (contrary to what the newspaper article tells us,) it is because the company hasn't  broken any law or regulation, much to the outrage of the OQLF, which is powerless to do anything about it.

Somewhere along the line, Urban Outfitters deemed it too expensive or inconvenient to open a website exclusively for francophone customers and as I told you before, Canadian customers are directed to the English website based in the USA.

In order to comply with Quebec law that demands that French customers be treated equally to English customers, Urban Outfitters decided (quite bizarrely) to treat English customers from Quebec as badly as it treats French customers!
What they have done, is to ban any online sales to Quebec from their English website, an embarrassing work-around copied and repeated by other American retailers.

If you go online to Urban Outfitters, don't bother trying to order something to a Quebec address, it isn't possible and for consumers, both English and French it is quite galling.

No QC -Quebec

Notwithstanding what La Presse or the OQLF says, Urban Outfitters is actually following the letter of the law, so what's the beef?

The problem is that it's a bit humiliating that the OQLF cannot force a company to offer French online shopping based on the fact that such a service is available to customers in California or Ontario.
So to retaliate, the OQLF, (instead of just admitting it is powerless,) has organized an underhanded intimidation and smear campaign, by falsely suggesting that Urban Outfitters is acting illegally.

CLICK photo to enlarge

Recently I received an offer from Costco in my inbox for a home telephone system at a substantial discount if I ordered online.
I was interested and went to the checkout page only to be informed that the product was not available in Quebec. The notice didn't say why, but I can imagine it was because the product did not have French instructions.
The same goes for Canadian online websites that have toys or other products that only interact in English, you have to buy them through US based online retailers.
Read my previous post  Buzz Lightyear -Parlez-vous Francais?

French language militants will tell you that this is only fair, that because a French customer cannot buy a product in French, an English customer shouldn't be allowed to buy the product in English...Hmm....

The politics of Bill 101 are strangely paradoxical, forcing some areas of the marketplace to comply with French language requirements while ignoring others.

Take for example, books, which may be sold in English in Quebec without a French version.
Why is this?
You may think that cultural products are exempt from the law, but Hollywood movies may not be shown in Quebec without a French dubbed version being available at the same time.
Not so for coffee house movies or foreign language movies (other than English) , probably because nobody cares.

How is it that Lady Gaga or Taylor Swift, aren't required to record French lyrics for Quebec?
Why do real cars have dashboards with English words only, yet toy cars must be French or bilingual at the least?

The truth is that if French were required in the above examples, Lady Gaga or Taylor Swift wouldn't bother selling their product in Quebec, a humiliating situation that the OQLF recognizes and avoids by remaining silent. By the way, even the English only packaging is allowed. 

As for cars, it would be easy enough to add French to the dashboard, but the car companies wouldn't pass off the added cost to customers across North America, the additional expense would be added to the sticker price in Quebec only, (like higher car prices in California because of tougher emission standards) making cars more expensive in Quebec than in Ontario, something francophone consumers would be up in arms over.

The reality is that the OQLF is fine with forcing French onto businesses as long as the additional cost of the French is passed on to the greater English market, as is the case with dubbed movies, which moviegoers across Canada pay for.
Could you imagine the outrage if theatres in Quebec charged an additional dollar or so for French language version movies versus their English counterparts, to reflect the added expense of dubbing?

These are the anomalies of Bill 101 that intrigue me. It is a law that does what it can to socially engineer society, but fails because of certain economic and social realities and constraints.

While Bill 101 tells French Quebecers and Allophones that they must attend French school as a child, it dares not forbid them from watching English TV or attending English language movies.
Believe me that there are militants out there who would see English TV and movies banned, just like the social engineers who want bottled water bottles gone from the marketplace.
Again, could you imagine the riot in front of a theatre, if ticket sellers refused entrance to Francophones attempting to watch an English film. It may sound North Korean, but it is done in our schools every day.

When it comes to online sales, the legal choice in Quebec is clear, retailers must offer equivalent French services or not offer them at all.
It is when companies choose the latter alternative that the hackles of the OQLF are raised and where in response the agency reacts with an calculated smear campaign that intimates that the retailers are acting illegally, a shameful practice unbecoming to any reputable government agency.

And so, the OQLF, the guardian of the French language has evolved into a slimy, deceitful and underhanded organization that is not averse to intimidation, misdirection, lying and coercion, when faced with the limitations of its own law.

Such is the lesson of Urban Outfitters.

For the OQLF, the choice by this company and other American retailers to forgo online sales because of French language requirements should be a choice to be respected, if not appreciated. In other words, tough noogies.

Unfortunately, like dirty cops, the OQLF enforces the law where it can and uses underhanded frame tactics where it can't.
What better example of going outside the law is the agency telling the public that even though certain bilingual practices (like greeting customers with a Bonjour/Hi) may be legal, they are socially unacceptable.
Here is a quote about bilingual greetings in stores, from Louise Marchand,  head of the OQLF;.

 "It is not a violation of the Charter, but it can contribute to the feeling that Montreal is anglicized" Link{Fr}

The effect of statements like these is to encourage French language militants to intimidate those who use English quite legally and to frighten company executives from offering English services as the law provides.

How many retailers have given up posting signs in English, even though the law allows for it, this even in towns and cities that are overwhelmingly English?

You know the answer as well as I.