A lot has been written and a lot has been said by proponents and opponents of the bill but few on either side are willing to admit the truth, that Bill 101 was an instrument of ethnic cleansing, not language protection.
The author of the law, Camille Laurin, was an Anglophobe extraordinaire, a man who believed that the independence of Quebec could not happen as long as the Quebec English community thrived. Bill 101 by his own admission was an attempt not only to regulate language but an attempt to break the Quebec English community as a political force, once and for all.
And so Bill 101 was not conceived primarily as a language law, meant to redress language issues as much as it was an attempt at ethnic cleansing. The law would put the hated Anglos in their place and hopefully 'convince' them that Quebec was no longer hospitable and that for those who stayed, a promise of second class citizenship.
Laurin filled the Bill with outrageously restrictive clauses that he knew were clearly unconstitutional because he intended to provoke a fight, understanding that every inevitable defeat in the Supreme Court would be characterized as a humiliation, fuel for the separatist movement.
Every time I think of the hateful Camille Laurin I imagine him conducting a Quebecois version of the Wannsee conference, deciding rather coldly how the destruction of the Quebec Anglo community would proceed.
René Levesque, Premier and leader of the PQ at the time, never supported Bill 101 as it was written, believing it was too restrictive and vindictive. But his cabinet secretary Louis Bernard, aligned with Laurin, rallied the cabinet to the hard line, leaving Levesque with no other option but to support the bill. That being said, Levesque walked out of the National Assembly when Laurin tabled his bill, a snub that Laurin never forgave.
The PQ understood exactly what Bill 101 would do to the English community and in an interview years later, Louis Bernard admitted that an Anglo exodus in reaction to Bill 101 was a price that the PQ was willing to pay. What he didn't say or wouldn't admit is that this result was exactly what the PQ planned.
Still today, language militants continue to propagate the myth that Bill 101 was 'torpedoed' or 'butchered' by Ottawa instead of admitting that the constitutional challenges that led to the invalidation of many of the punitive aspects of the law were always part of the game plan. They continue to sell the big lie that Bill 101 was the innocent victim of a federalist plot to reduce Quebec's power.
But in both respects, Bill 101 was a rousing success, it chased hundreds of thousands of Anglos out of the province and elevated French to a position of domination over English in public life. It effectively broke the English community's back and when the rest of Canada decided to accept Bill 101 as the cost of keeping Canada together, the appeasement sealed the fate of the English community in Quebec.
I wonder how all the leftist Liberal and NDPers who supported this idea of indulging the separatists in order to preserve the country, would react to Israel creating a law that restricted Arabic?
Israel and Quebec both share some commonalities, they are about the same population and have a linguistic minority. Both are surrounded by neighbouring countries which speak a hostile language. Hebrew is as much at risk in Israel as French is in Quebec.
So what if Israel proclaimed that the only valid language and culture is Hebrew and that public life would henceforth be conducted in Hebrew only.
What would be if Israel enacted a Bill 101 of its own? I'm not talking about occupied territories, but Israel proper. That law might prescribe that Arabic signs could not be erected without a Hebrew equivalent, which would be obliged to be of bigger characters than the Arabic. This would apply all over Israel even in towns and villages that are predominantly Arabic, the same as in Quebec where towns like Hampstead which are 80-90% English must also post French signs according to the law. What if some public services were mandated to be offered in Hebrew only and what if restrictions would be placed on Arabic education.
What bloody Hell would break loose at the United Nations where nation after nation would lambaste Israel as racist, with Canada's NDP and Liberals front and center in the criticism.
Today separatists lament that perhaps Bill 101 was too successful because it addressed the perceived linguistic grievance, and thus the impetus for sovereignty was forestalled. Boo hoo....
Bill 101 remains the same hateful hammer, a mean-spirited and evil concoction meant to intimidate and punish the English community with the hopeful outcome of keeping English in check.
Whenever I argue with those who say that Bill 101 has nothing to do with hate, retribution or domination, I remind them of the rule that forces an English speaking immigrant student from Jamaica, New York or London, whose mother tongue is English and someone who speaks nothing but English into the French schooling system.
Nothing could be more stupid or cruel, the argument that these people must be integrated into the French side of the language equation utterly laughable and unattainable.
Forcing Anglophones into French schools is the height of vindictiveness, an overt action of hate and aggression, meant only to punish.
Bill 101 was more about destroying the English community than protecting the French language.
It was and remains a vindictive law that successfully persecutes Anglophones for political motives, all with the quiet acquiescence of the cowardly rest of Canada.
