A Tale of Two Flags

Most of us have heard about the argument going on over bilingual signs in New Brunswick, specifically in Moncton where a proposal to force stores to post bilingual signs is meeting some resistance. Pressure is mounting to match the bylaw passed in a neighbouring town, Dieppe, that made bilingual signage mandatory.
I'm loathe to say that the proposal is meeting with a firestorm of criticism, because just as in Quebec, the publicity surrounding those militating against the proposal, far outweighs what popular opinion represents. Read a newspaper story about the opposition to French signs.
A note to readers- both of these towns have a significant francophone population, so bilingual signage is not pandering to a tiny percentage of citizens. 

Listening to the arguments of those against 'forced bilingualism' is just as exasperating as listening to the cretinous arguments made by French language zealots in Quebec, who also believe that any sign in the opposite language is an automatic step towards assimilation.

The argument that "forcing" merchants to post bilingual signs is an attack on 'freedom of expression' is particularly specious. Those against the bilingualism proposal, hold that merchants be allowed to post signs in whatever language they want to, with the public acting as final arbiter, voting with their wallets whether to support the business or not.

Our society has long ago decided that the government has not only the right but the obligation to regulate business practices and so, for example, there are laws concerning product safety and food labelling that force manufacturers to follow certain manufacturing norms along with the obligation to disclose ingredients on their product's labels, in both official languages. Should these requirements be voluntary?

A bylaw demanding bilingual signs is no more an attack on freedom than a bylaw demanding that a restaurant keep clean or that merchants not sell cigarettes to minors.

Speed limits, red lights and stop signs are all restrictions on our movement. Hate laws are a restriction of freedom of expression. Labour laws are a restriction on employers ability to exploit workers and health and safety laws restrict how we prepare food or operate equipment.
There will always be those who argue that wearing a seat belt in a car or a helmet while operating a motorcycle is an abusive restriction on freedom.
Regulation, by definition is a restriction of freedom, but certain restrictions are deemed reasonable and desirable and society has long accepted regulation as a necessary evil.
New Brunswick English language militants may argue that bilingual signage is a restriction on 'freedom of expression,'  but so what?  The only question to be argued is whether that restriction is reasonable.

Forced bilingual signs in a community with significant numbers of both language groups is not only reasonable but downright neighbourly. Those who oppose it are language zealots.

Now to the story of two flags.
It seems that one of the radical English language groups opposing the proposed bylaw, the 'Anglo Society' asked permission to fly their flag over City Hall in Bathurst for a day, as a salute to their organization.

Now before I go on with the story, I want to explain that the Anglo Society is as nutty, shrill and as unreasonable as any of the militant French language groups in Quebec.  Go over to their web site to see what I mean.

They similarly believe that any concession to the other language is an attack on the future viability of their own culture and language. Translate the content of their web site into French and it could easily be posted on that of the Mouvement Montréal français!

And so now, a real firestorm has broken out over the decision to fly this "Anglo Society" flag over city hall.  When the town council was made aware of certain 'facts,' the invitation was withdrawn.

As you'd expect, there was also an outcry in Quebec against the flag raising in a variety of militant quarters, led by none other than the prolific Anglo-basher Louis Prefontaine who devoted a hate filled column about the injustice of it all.
Mr Prefontaine noted that the date that the flag was to be raised corresponded with that of the date that the City of Quebec was defeated by the English back in 1759. I don't know if the Anglo Society was aware of this fact and chose the date specifically, but Mr. Prefontaine chose to concentrate on this fact and railed against the insult, real or intended, with a vituperative blast. LINK (Fr)

"...For French speakers in North America - or what remained of them, the end of the French presence marked a turning point, a collective trauma, possibly as bad, if not more so, than the atomic bombings in Japan. The society of our ancestors was beheaded, our language was banned and more than two-thirds of the population of Acadia was deported. We had our land stolen, we were killed and  destroyed. And now the English want to celebrate it?

.... a bit like the Germans hoisting the Nazi flag over Auschwitz." 

As you see, Mr. Prefontaine was none to pleased about the possibility of the Anglo Society hoisting their "Nazi" flag over Bathurst.

But wait, Mr Prefontaine has more to say about flags, this time about another flag incident that took place in Quebec.

Let me  take you back to an article I wrote last year about the annual Fêtes Saint-Jean celebration in a Montreal neighbourhood where a  controversy erupted over the decision by organizers to invite some English artists to perform. Read the story.
 
In the end, the organizers stood up to the militants and allowed the groups to perform amid some small protests. Almost all of the attendees expressed support for the inclusive decision of the organizers, which earned the event the undying enmity of French language militants.

At this year's celebration, a small group of militants was told that they could not enter the park to attend the show because of the controversial nature of the flag that they were bearing, to which Mr. Prefontaine had this to say;

".....On Wednesday, June 23, some people were barred from Pelican Park in Montreal,  for the (Fete Saint Jean celebration) event called  'l’Autre St-Jean." What crimes did they commit? Were they in possession of explosives, rifles, knives, Molotov cocktails, chainsaws or tactical nuclear weapons? No. They waved a Patriot's flag, symbol of the desire of Quebec liberation for one hundred and fifty years.

Mr. Prefontaine is too modest, the flag is not just the symbol of the desire for Quebec liberation, it was adopted by the FLQ as their standard and was brandished during their reign of terror during the infamous FLQ kidnapping crisis and is forever linked to the organization. It was for that reason, organizers banned the flag from their Fêtes Saint-Jean celebration, in a sensible effort to keep the event non-political.

So it seems that when it comes to flags, a Quebec terrorist flag is perfectly acceptable, while an Anglo Society flag in New Brunswick is an affront to all humanity.

The French have a wonderful saying - "Deux poids, Deux mesures," a delicious double standard.

I'll leave you all with one last quote from Mr. Prefontaine, one that I found sadly ironic;

"But for English extremists, one French word is a word too much. At a previous demonstration against bilingualism in Moncton, they marched carrying  placards saying- "Bilingual Today, French Tomorrow"

 Replace the word "English" with French and vice-versa and it pretty much sums up Mr. Prefontaine's own philosophy!
Is the irony really lost on him?

Supreme Court Under Assault

The recent court decision (A victory for religious freedom) overturning the Quebec Minister of Education and her department's decision to force private religious schools to teach the infamous ERC (Ethics and Religious Culture) course according to government standards has underlined the fact that the courts have become the last line of defence in the relentless war on personal freedoms waged by successive Quebec governments.
(Barbara Kay in the National Post offers an excellent explanation and analysis of the ERC if you'd like to know more.)

The fury displayed by those elected and unelected officials at the 'impertinent' court's audacity to overturn a government policy that violates not only our constitution, but the general principles of freedom that has been the hallmark of our society for generations is telling.  It is a dangerous sign that the assault on personal choice is going hand in had with an assault on the last line of defence of our freedoms- the courts.

An angry Minister of education, Michelle Courchesne, called the decision "excessive" in response to the court ruling that backed the school, one in which she was subject to a serious dressing down by Justice Gérard Dugré.

The minister reacted quickly, telling reporters that the decision would be appealed, a position that was quickly supported by opposition leader Pauline Marois who also holds that our courts are nothing more than pesky meddlers.

Let me refresh readers with the issue concerned,  it isn't that complicated.

Several years ago the government removed the teaching of religion from  public schools and replaced it with a generalized course in ethics and religious culture (ERC), one that taught students about the structure and beliefs of most major religions from a neutral or secular standpoint. Some commentators were uncomfortable with the Ethics side of the course, claiming that it was nothing more than political indoctrination, citing the example of the insufferable Francoise David the dogmatic separatist leader of the Quebec Soldaire political party who is portrayed in the course material as a shining example of feminism. That being said, the real bug bear was the teaching of religions from a secular standpoint.

Some parents both in the public and private school systems objected to exposing their children to the tenets of other religions and the sanitized secular views being imposed on them, claiming that it was confusing and undermining the family's inherent right to be responsible for religious instruction.

A group of parents in Drummondville sued to exempt their children from the course, but lost in court. That case is currently winding itself up to the Supreme Court

A private religious school in Montreal, Loyola High School, sued as well, when its request to teach the ERC course from a Catholic perspective was denied by the eduction department, which told the school it must teach the course in the prescribed manner, from a neutral point of view.

 The judge hearing the case came down hard on the Minister and the Education Department's policy, saying;

“The obligation imposed on Loyola to teach the ethics and religious culture course in a lay fashion assumes a totalitarian character essentially equivalent to Galileo’s being ordered by the Inquisition to deny the Copernican universe.” -Justice Gérard Dugré.

Wow, he didn't mince words!
Essentially his decision was that while the Education department may impose a neutral view of the religious world in public schools, the department may not tell private religious schools to do the same.
The judge made eminently good sense in saying that as long as religious private schools are legal, they may teach religion in their schools.

Of course this makes no sense to the government and other secularists who demand that their view on language, culture and religion be imposed on all students, like it or not.

Now the government has decided that it will appeal the court's decision, a foolish move that will just delay the inevitable defeat in the Supreme Court, a move cynically calculated to shift the blame for the defeat to the 'dastardly Anglo' Supreme Court.
This strategy was used successfully to take the heat off the Quebec government for having passed Bill 104, a law clearly unconstitutional.
But unlike the Bill 104 case, where the application of the decision was set aside for a year, Loyola can immediately modify the ECR course to suit itself. In an effort to show good faith, the school continues to argue for dialogue and cooperation with the education department. To allay fears that the school is teaching some form of extremism, Loyola published some of it's course material on the web. If you have a chance, I highly recommend that you take a look at what the school is teaching, it shames the public version.

Picking up on the decision, Josée Legault the ultra-nationalist separatist journalist has proposed a simple way to get around those irritable Supreme Court decisions.

She suggests that each time a law is ruled illegal, a new law, similar to the last, be passed  by the government. Any further contestation would take years and years to wind up the legal system and when that law is ultimately overturned, the process could be started all over again.  She has labelled this as legal terrorism.
Unfortunately, this seems to be the course of action the government is adopting with the proposal of Bill 103, a law created to replace that which was thrown out by the Supreme Court. That law is even more coercive than what it replaced.

Of course there's the old NOTWITHSTANDING CLAUSE, a shameful device created to appease provincial governments to sign on to the Constitution in 1982. It actually allows a provincial government to override a Supreme Court ruling for a period up to five years, in order, ostensibly, to maintain the British tradition of giving Parliament the ultimate say and so, as a last resort the government can always opt out of a decision after losing in court, a situation that makes suing the government even riskier.
It's hard to undertake a long legal challenge, knowing that even if you win in the highest court in the land, you can still be deprived of the benefits of your victory.

All of this means that the power of our courts, the last bastion of defence of our freedoms is being systematically eroded.

Sovereignist and nationalist groups have undertaken an organized assault to denigrate the Supreme Court, portraying it as an unelected Anglo preserve of Quebec-bashers.

Mario Beaulieu of the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste and a group of his cohorts, have taken to Montreal's metro dressed in Supreme court garb to lampoon and trash the institution, blaming the court for taking Bill 101 apart one small piece at a time.

What they fail to remind Quebeckers is that every time a case is 'lost' in the Supreme Court of Canada, it has already been lost in Quebec's highest court. This inconvenient truth is never mentioned at all.

So the fantasy is woven that it is the Anglos who are denying Quebec their due. It's a dangerous concept considering that in most of these language cases, it is the government that drags the case to the Supreme Court after finding no remedy in Quebec.

The hypocrisy is infuriating and should be denounced.

The fact that both Quebec jurists and Ottawa jurists, both agree that these language laws are unconstitutional is not the narrative that militants want to spread and so the Supreme court alone is targeted in the most cynical and dishonest fashion.

The Real Reason For the Ban on Pamela Anderson's PETA Poster

I don't for a minute accept the story that Pamela Anderson's sexy PETA  poster was banned in Montreal  because it was sexist. Link

 After all take a look at what passes for advertising across the city;

Even though nobody was saying it,  the ad was banned for other reasons.

.. Bill 101

The ad was exclusively in English ..... a no brainer, right?

...but then I was watching this TV commercial for this sports bar and I realized that I was wrong, that there was another underlying reason, more sinister and dark than the lack of French;

Yup, If there's one thing Quebeckers want to ban more that English signs, it's those damn vegetarians!

Air Transat "Speak-White" Tragicomedy

Nothing gets certain Quebeckers riled up faster than a good "Speak White" story, one where the Francophone protagonist is thrashed around rather cruelly by an arrogant Anglophone imposing the language of Shakespeare on the innocent and down-trodden.

As you may know, the genre originated back in the 1960's, when stories circulated popularizing the myth of matronly white-haired Anglophone clerks in the old Eaton's Department Store in downtown Montreal, demanding that francophones address them in English, using that mythically famous put-down of "SPEAK WHITE!"

Over the years, stories like these continued to make it into print, largely based on the ever popular notion that anglophones are oppressors. These stories can always be recognized by the absolute callousness and cruelty displayed by the Anglo antagonist and the absolute innocence of the put-upon francophone.

Richard Martineau is a popular writer for Le Journal de Montreal and has delivered some hilarious examples of the genre in the past. I wrote about one such story he spun once before.

At any rate, Mr. Martineau weaves another unlikely 'SPEAK WHITE' story, this one about his trip aboard an AIR TRANSAT flight to Greece and his 'intolerable' treatment at the hands of an anglophone cabin crew.
As he tells the story, his wife asked  for "Un jus d’orange, s’il vous plaît"  and was rewarded with a blank stare and an arrogant "What?" from the agent. LINK (French)

"Don't you speak French?" his wife demanded.

....and away we go! ---      SPEAK WHITE!!!!!

First of all, I imagine that most of you non French-speaking readers perusing this article can figure out what she wanted-  Orange juice, right?  (Un jus d’orange.)

Maybe you didn't, but for an air hostess, even a unilingual one, who pushes a food cart around for a living, not to understand this phrase is quite a stretch. I assume that any air hostess of experience would know the term for orange juice in at least six languages.
I bet she even understands such complicated French words like Scotch, Whiskey, Vin, Coca-Cola, Seven-up, Gingerale, Chips, and perhaps even the tough ones, like café and thé.

Now answering anyone with the familiar and somewhat rude "What?" instead of the polite "Excuse Me?"or "Pardon me?"  is another tell that this story is highly coloured. Airline people don't talk like that, even on AIR TRANSAT.  This is what happens when people embellish their stories and put words in other people's mouths.

Now the fact that this certain employee couldn't speak French doesn't surprise me that much, what does shock me, is that AIR TRANSAT  actually provides orange juice!
After all, when you fly a budget airline, you've got to make a few allowances.

I'm sure that somewhere on the plane there was a couple of members of the cabin crew that spoke fluent French. It certainly isn't a rule that every crew member speaks both English and French and to assume so is arrogant. But I'm sure Air Transat, if asked,  would confirm that they didn't send a plane out of Montreal without anyone who could speak French. It is beyond the scope of credulity.

The story gets more and more unlikely with another member of the AIR TRANSAT crew purportedly haranguing  the francophone family in Greek. When Mr. Martineau responded that he didn't speak Greek, the attendant told him;
" Oh no ? You don’t speak Greek ? Well, I don’t speak French. What’s the problem ? "

Nope..... it didn't happen....Not a chance........ Cabin crews do not engage in wars of words with passengers, they usually fight back by ignoring you.

It's quite likely that the family simply took offence that the agent didn't speak French and instead of asking for someone who did, or speak English themselves, they decided to make a fuss. Some people are like that.

I remember an incident in my youth, as a retail clerk being confronted by a customer who complained that an article in our store showcase window was ticketed at a cheaper price than similar items on the rack. He was quite angry and complained about the misleading advertising, quite vociferously. When I offered him the product at the same low price, he told me he wasn't interested in buying anything, he just thought we should know! Hmmm!!
I remember thinking to myself-  "GET A LIFE!"

Instead of bitching and moaning, perhaps Mr. Martineau's companion should have thanked the cabin crew for the practice, they'd be landing in Greece in the next few hours and they'd be well-served to brush up on their English, because, trust me, French ain't cutting it in Greece (I know, I just returned, myself.)

What's interesting about all this is the amount of interest the story generated, the hundred plus comments attached to the article attest to the power of these fairy tales.

Most commenters were understandably shocked and dismayed at the ultimate humiliation that the French language was subjected to, once again. Quebec's most active defender of the language faith, Louis Prefontaine instantly organized a boycott of Air Transat via Facebook, but for those travelling on budget airlines, paying double or triple on Air Canada doesn't seem like much of an option.
Perhaps it would be better and cheaper to practice just a few English phrases, when travelling on the likes of Air Transat;

"May I have some orange juice. please?" 

"Can you help me, I can't feel my legs anymore?"

"Can I pay extra for an arm rest?"

"Is that smell normal?"

"What do you mean, the seat doesn't move back?"

"There seems to be something wrong with my...light....tray...seatbelt...earplug..etc" 

Or you could try these handy Greek phrases;

Thank you............     Ay gamisou, vlaka! 

What did you say? ...........tea less ray malaka?

Orange Juice.......................Fila mou to kolo

Can you help me........Kane mou pipa

 

My favourite comment from these French language militants is this pearl;

• To  what extent do people from other places not understand that the only official language in Quebec is French, while Canada is bilingual.

Hmmm...

But not everyone was so convinced, here are some 'other' translated comments.

• ....at wages that Air Transat pays its employees, I don't know many people who want to work at $20,000 per year to go about flying day after day ... especially in those old aeroplanes. If all the agents had to be absolutely bilingual it would be hard to find Quebeckers to fill the jobs.
  
  
• I hope you had a good trip in Europe speaking French.(sarcasm) You are criticizing for criticism's sake, Mr. Martineau. 
  
  
•  I believe you either exaggerated or invented your story. Accusing a crew member of  being a 'DAMN ENGLISH' demonstrates a lack of etiquette and civility and the smallness of your mind imbued with hatred and malice, and reminds us of  Don Quixote who tilted at windmills which he mistaked for monsters. 
  
  
• What is with this obsession of always demonizing Anglos? Some of you are like "Dan Phillips", crying racism at every opportunity ... You have the same credibility
  

Quebec Music Festival Hits the Right Note

Much to the chagrin of language militants, the  Festival d'été de Québec, an annual  summer music festival held in Quebec City on the Plains of Abraham, has turned out to be a stunning success. The 42nd edition of the festival is a tribute to organizers, who despite relentless criticism from language militants, produced what is arguably Quebec's most successful entertainment event, eclipsing Montreal's famous Jazz Festival with revenues from ticket sales approaching $7 million as compared to the Jazz Fest's $6 million.

The FEQ uses the massive Plains of Abraham as a giant outdoor venue, which with the addition of giant screens can pack in a huge crowd. For that reason, ticket prices are extremely reasonable and an all-festival pass cost between $40 and $50.

The festival quickly sold out, the over 150,000 passes it made available and considering that the population of Quebec City is under 500,000 that's quite an accomplishment. The FEQ is gathering in popularity and the English component is bringing in tourists from the United States as well as English Canada, who recognize a good deal when they see one.

Extremely well organized, the FEQ has organized hotel and entertainment packages at prices that shame other Montreal giant events. A daily pass is just $25 and represents the best entertainment value available.

Language militants have complained that too many headline acts are English, (Iron Maiden, Black-Eyed Peas, Rush, etc.etc.) essentially watering down the French flavour of the Festival, to which the organizers bravely responded that they never, ever, promised anything but a diverse and entertaining array of artists that would be musically appealing to the broadest of audiences.

In a new conference, the organizers crowed that their programming decisions seemed to please the public and happily reported that all the festival passes were 'sold out,' to which French militants responded cleverly that it was nothing more than a 'sell out' and that the English programming was nothing more than 'fast food' compared to the gourmet offerings of francophone artists. Link (French)

The slam against the festival that they didn't program enough Francophone artists is in itself as bogus as a three-dollar bill. Organizers did their best and explained the difficulty in bringing in European artists who generally prefer to stay at home in the summer. To bring in more Francophone artists would mean scraping the bottom of the barrel and presenting a local garage band or two and the music lovers wouldn't have any of that.

At any rate,  Iron Maiden drew a crowd of approximately 80,000 people and the Black-Eyed Peas did even better, to the point that the fans were tearing down fences to get to see the sold-out show!

Francophone headliners like Laura Fabian, drew in the neighbourhood of 15,000 fans and Gilles Vigneault in the area of 40,000 fan,  not close to the Anglo superstars, but still not shabby at all.

The success of the English artists allowed the Festival to subsidize Francophone artists, an idea that went down like a lead balloon once explained to militants, who had been complaining that a Quebec government subsidy was benefiting Anglo groups.

Reaction to articles written by the language militants like Antoine Caron were quite robust. Commenting on the article that compared Anglo music to McDonalds, one commenter didn't mince words.

"According to the author of this article, the Quebec Summer festival should highlight only second-class artists such as  Mr. Caron, himself,  Honestly!"

With their argument torn to shreds, language hawks were sent scurrying, to fight another battle, another day.