Quebec: April 7, 2014

[BigSkyBob]

The PQ certainly isn't far-right or fascistic or anything, but it is kind of a bit racist. But then the Liberals are kind of entirely corrupt.

I certainly won't contradict it. There was always a segment of the base which was, but, until the 90's, the leadership wasn't pursuing policies in that sense.

Rene Levesque policies weren't racist (he may have been through, he pursued pro-gay rights polices despite being personnaly homophobic), but the Charter is.

And before someone brings language rights, English isn't a race.

I have a basic sympathy for those wanting to preserve their cultural identity and political autonomy. I have no sympathy for a movement that would deny parents the choice to educate their children in the language that will further their children's eventual quest for employment in places like Toronto and Alberta simply because of an accident of birth.

Comparisons with the FN are completely unfair. It is "mainstream" French parties that are fining their own citizens for using "le hoovercraft," and, compound nouns.  Heaven forbid someone say "passport number" rather than the more wordy "the number of the passport." Apparently, that nonsense has crossed the pond.

Frankly, the linguistic destiny of North America was sealed in Haiti over two centuries ago. [It was probably decided by the English decision to, and the French refusal to, sentence folks to transportation long before the Haitian uprising.]  Outlawing the local McDonald's from selling "French fries" because "French fries" isn't the French term reeks of desperate reaction from folks who know they are on the wrong side of history.  At least, they aren't demanding that local franchises be named "Fils de Donald," yet.

[BigSkyBob]

Oh, great, the English suprematist troll is back again.

As an alleged "English suprematist troll" I would only note that I am much more sympathetic to their views that most.  Unlike most Anglophones, and unlike most Americans who had no opinion, I was routing for the referendums to pass, and was disappointed when they failed.  While my heart might sympathize with the cause, my head knows the linguistic future of North America. Government action might delay the inevitable, but, it can't stop it.


G.K. Chesterton wrote that he wouldn't want to governed by foreigners because it would mean being annoyed in hundreds of ways be could not begin to list.  I'm sure that French Canadians have a similar list for being governed by Anglophones. Voting to be governed by Francophones makes a certain sense. Designing a government where Anglophones are annoyed in thousands of ways that bureaucrats do list does not. At a certain you have acknowledge that what is happening in Quebec is state-organized harassment. And, at a certain point you have to conclude the purpose of the policies is simply to see to that Anglophones quit Quebec. That is simply wrong on so many levels.  To be lectured as a "suprematist" by those that support state-organized harassment of just about everyone who happens to not share their ethnicity, and harasses almost no one who happens to share their ethnicity doesn't even pass the smell test.

[BigSkyBob]

I'm sorry then. I just had bad memories of what happened last time you taled about the subject.

I'll happily concede you than the OQLF (the so-called language police) is clearly over the top. While, on paper, the idea is good, on the application, they are clearly overzealous. But, in the 70's, it was needed since all stores were belonging to Anglophones and were refusing to give services in French. But right now, it's clearly overzealous and they should stick to check in services in French are avaliable in every shop, which was the first goal. Besides that, I don't see any "bureaucratic harassment". Most government forms are avaliable in English and most emigration is because it's not really possible to live in Quebec anymore as an unilingual Anglophone outside Montreal and Outaouais. It's quite difficult to live in an area where you are not talking the language of the majority. You're de facto excluded, since you can't communicate with them.

As for French fries, why they would do that? They didn't have to be forced, they translate the name of their products in the local language in most countries. It helps to identify the product.

And, really, it's possible to reach a perfect level in English with current system. Upper education isn't subject to that and I know plenty of people who decided to go to an English college or university for that reason. It's working well right now.

"But, in the 70's, it was needed since all stores were belonging to Anglophones and were refusing to give services in French. "

That sounds a little Orwellian to me.  I don't find it plausible that in a Province in which 80% of people speak French some stores weren't owned or managed by Francophones. It would seem that the shops that catered to Francophones would have more customers than those that catered exclusively to Anglophones.  Offering services in the indigenous language would be a competitive advantage that ought to have prevailed over time in a market economy.

What seems to be the case was that bilingualism had taken root in some areas.  That created a situation in which Francophone kids could seek employment in Alberta or Toronto, form families, and raise Anglophone kids, while Anglophone kids could move to bilingual areas of Quebec and raise bilingual Anglophones children.  The inevitable result of such a linguistic melting pot with a such a bias would have been English Canada.  This resulted in the rise of reactionary forces that wanted to vote to slow the process using the power of state.

In America, menus list things like "tacos" and "fajitas" in Mexican dinners, "cannoli" and "ravioli" in Italian dinners, "wantons" in Chinese dinners and "escargot" in French dinners.  I read a story a couple of years ago about an Italian dinner in Quebec that was threatened with fines and other horrors if it continued to sell, I think it was, "cannoli." Apparently, there is a French name for the dish.  Now, you might dismiss this an example of being "overzealous," but, I do not.  Bad causes attract bad people.  Only folks who are "overzealous" would self-select to enforce such a ridiculous policy.  Government of fanatics, by fanatics, and for fanatics is going to create fanatical outcomes.

By your admission an Anglophone could have shopped with ease in Quebec back in the 70's. Presumably, if nothing else, they could have worked in the same shops.  Now, by your own admission, it isn't even possible for them to live in Quebec. You agree with me. We merely disagree on whether, or not, this outcome was intentional, or not.  We both agree this is what is happening. I find this harassment. You don't. Kids growing up in Quebec now face living in the quite difficult situation of not speaking English if they seek employment in Alberta or Toronto. You agree with me. We merely disagree on whether, or not, this outcome was intentional, or not.