From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Education
Date: 22 Jul 92 14:12:03 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article (Christopher Browne) writes:
>You didn't answer his question - you merely said something that was
>(at least for the moment) beside the point.

It is not besides the point at all: the result is the same. If you
give the right to people to french schools, but the facilities don't
exist, you're still not getting education in french!

>There is a BIG difference between:
>(1)  Having poor availability of schools in French due to a lack of
>demand, due to the lack of a large French population, and

Lack of demand! Bullshit. It used to be illegal to teach in french in
a lot of provinces. People had to pretend they were educated in
english. Of course the demand diminished since then (because of
repression). That "demand" theory is pure interpretation. What
justifies a french schools? 5%, 10%, 20%? In Quebec, you'll find
english schools (for anglo-quebecois) almost anywhere. Even if you
have only a 5% portion of anglophones.

>(2)  FORBIDDING children to study English in school "because we have
>to protect the French language," or some such political reason.

It is not FORBIDDING children to study in english. It's: if you want
to immigrate to Quebec, be aware that your children will be educated
in in french. If you think that this is unacceptable (i.e., be part of
the society you are immigrating to), then maybee you should consider
another place, possibly another province. It works like that in all
so-called bilingual countries. If I emmigrate to the flemmish part of
Belgium, I won't be able to send my kids to french school, despite the
fact that one of the countries two official languages is french.

>I guess that he should have known better than to cite Great Britain
>for doing something nice.  A Quebecois would NEVER accept that
>something good could come out of London.  Silly example, Mr. Potter.

He could have used any other country, it wouldn't make any difference.

>Yes, all regions HAVE been bilingual.  Until some of them chose to
>take on policies of unilingualism...  Some basic services have been
>available in both languages, and there were no legal barriers to
>providing optional services in either language.  There are barriers
>now.

There is a difference between offical and real bilinguism. Declaring
Ontario bilingual will not make the people speak french, and a
francophone would still feel he's a stanger.

>However, things have changed, in terms of policy.  Demographics change
>more slowly.  Today, unilingual anglophones need not apply for
>government jobs (unless they're in some "minority group") - they'll
>stand at the back of the line behind everyone else.  The bilingual
>francophones are the ones getting the jobs today.

>There seems to be a large group of this sort that survive quite nicely
>in Florida...

:-)  Touche'...  A nice way to avoid the question though...

>But the point is, he came to a country that has TWO official
>languages, and people speaking either language DO have rights relating
>to those languages THROUGHOUT the country.

As I pointed out earlier, that's not true in any of the bilingual (or
multilingual) country I know. Doesn't work this way in Belgium or in
Switzerland.

And by the way "having the right" throughout the country means that
the facilities must also be present to ensure that these rights are
effective.

>Quebec is, and has been for some 125 years, a part of the country that
>is called Canada.  The fact that you'd like to change that does not
>change the fact.

Canada has been officially bilingual since then, and the rights of the
francophone minorities have been denied in most places for that period
of time. More than enought to decimate the french population to a
point-of-no-return level.

>An independent state of Quebec can choose whatever laws it likes -
>however oppressive, or however free.  Until that time, there ARE two
>official languages.

Dream on. I have a friend who tried to reach Canada from Japan (by
phone) in french. Everytime he tried it they were not able to find
anyone who wanted to speak french. Told him things like "speak
english, this is Canada" or, most of the time, just hang up.
Bilingual?

>If and when there is a breakup, I STRONGLY suspect that the resulting
>states will BOTH be officially unilingual, and large minorities WILL
>be offended.

They already are.

>And some of the offenses are already starting.  In Quebec, anglophones
>ARE being systematically discriminated against.  Not as random acts by
>foolish individuals, but by the government in power.  

Mega-bullshit again. In some parts of Montreal, you cannot get service
in anything but english. You talk to people in french and they answer
you in english. I don't know of anything similar anywhere outside
Quebec, i.e., asking something in english and having people answer you
back in french.

-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
                                      Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM