From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steven C. Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Biliguism
Date: 23 Jul 92 17:34:23 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 9015

From article <12346@audetf>, by audetf@Software.Mitel.COM 
 Francois Audet writes:-

> In article steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steven C. Potter) writes:
>>   You are still denying the existence of an English community in Quebec!
> 
> No I'm not, and that's why the restriction of education language do
> not apply to the anglo-quebecois. That's also why english schools are
> funded with public funds.

  You have, do, and will (no doubt!) - by asserting that people coming
  to Quebec should expect to operate in language of the provice: French!

  That is a denial of the existence of the English community in Quebec!


  So I am not an "anglo-quebecois"?

> 
>>   Quebec's francophone "face" is a "masque".
> 
> Why? Are you denying the french history of Quebec?

  "Why?" 

  Because a French face is another attempt to deny that existence
  of the English community in Quebec. A "Masque" is a more appropriate
  term.



  "Are you denying...?" 

  No! - You are denying the English part of Quebec's hostory.

> 
> The english community of Quebec exist because of the conquest of
> then-Canada by the British. That obviously cannot be changed. What can
> be changed is the future, so that's why the law attempts to minimize
> the deterioration of the francophone Quebec to the benefit of the
> anglophone Quebec.

  The law, in practice, causes deterioration - to both English and French
  Quebec - to nobodys benefit!

> 
>>   I already speakthe language of the English community to which I naturally
>>   belong. I learned French at school and I shall encourage my children to
>>   do the same.
> 
> I'd do the same, but if I was moving to England, I would not send my
> kids to french school, and complain of not being able to do so.

  I'm sure if 10% of the population in England was French and you were told
  that you could not send your children to French schools available in your
  neighbourhood you would have something to say about it - not dissimilar to
  what I have been saying in this network.

  You know very well that that is not the case and your comparison is
  another example of your attempt to deny the existence of the English
  community in Quebec.
 
> 
>>   "effectively FORCED" because resources and schools are not available is
>>   NOT the same thing as being legislatively denied access to public
>>   resources that are available to other members of the community.
> 
> Why isn't it the same? To me, at least the law is clear, while
> claiming rights to schooling in the language of choice but failing to
> provide it is simply hypocrit. It keeping the eyes close not to see
> the injustice being done. Both achieves the same result, except that
> in Quebec, the anglo-quebecois are protected (unlike the
> franco-not-quebecois).

  I agree there is an injustice being done in not providing services where
  there is sufficient demand for them (You tell me what's sufficient: 5%,
  10% ?).

  Legally denying access to facilities already available is also injust,
  immoral, intolerant and racist!

  It is not the same thing at all.

> 
>>   When access to those services is only granted to a certain language group
>>   (according to when and where thay were educated) it is RACIST!
> 
> Not again. This is like saying that providing the facilities for
> schooling only in english (and not in the other "official" language)
> is also racist.

  No it isn't : What I said was very clear!

> 
>>  Francophones in all the other provinces in Canada have a legal right to
>>  have ther children educated in French schools where there are enough of
>>  them to warrant the provision of the service. 
> 
> This is a pile of crap. The law does not force any provincial
> government to provide such service "were number warrants." 

  I'll quote chapter and verse for you if you need it: check section
  23 of the Can. Chrtr. of Rts. & Frdms.

  Your perception of reality is distorted.

> 
>>  You seem to be trying to suggest that English people must be prevented
>>  from using English schools that are already available in Quebec until
>>  other provinces provide French schools all over Canada.
> 
> I'm not sure what you are referring to with "english" in this case.

  Do you need the dictionary again?

  What do you mean by an "anglo-quebecois"?

> Bill 101 originally said that english education for anglo-quebecois
> would be guaranteed (funding and everything), which is already a lot
> more than what exist in other provinces. It also had a clause that
> stipulated that if a citizen from another province "immigrates" to
> Quebec, he would be allowed to have education in english for its kids
> provided that his province of origin provides french education for the
> francophone minority.
> 
> As for immigration from other countries, I don't know why all the
> argumentation since there is virtually not francophone immigration
> outside Quebec.

  You didn't aswere my assertion.

> 
>>   I am objecting to being denied the right to join my own linguistic
>>   community in Quebec.
> 
> I could object to not even having my linguistic minority survive in
> TROC.

  Yes you could.

> 
>>   You are still trying to deny the existence of an English community in
>>   Quebec.
> 
> No. I'm objecting to Quebec supporting a NEW english community. It is
> unthinkable to deny the existence of an english community in Montreal,
> even if its existence is associated with an invasion of a country.
> Can't blame the descendants of course. There is no reason whatsoever
> why Quebec should accept to support new arrivants to integrate an
> english community rather than a french one. No other country does
> anything like that (including the rest of Canada). Why would we? 

  Don't you read?

> 
>>   If there were a French community in Great Britain (even if French were
>>   not an official language of the country) I would support them! 
>>
>>   If they wanted their own French language school, for example, at
>>   public expense - Why not?
> 
> How do you expect to be in a situation were "number warrants" if they
> were denied access to schooling and services in their own language
> since the beginning? It's a chicken-and-egg situation! Communities
> don't pop-up of anywhere. In the case of the english minority in
> Quebec, it started up when the then-British took control of Canada.
> The minority was not assimilated (unlike a lot of the irish because of
> their religion) because they had their own parallel system that
> included education and other services. That's a chance that the
> francophones of the rest of Canada didn't have.

  Well there is an English community in Quebec. I am de facto a member
  of that community and I want to send my children to English schools if
  I choose to do so.

  I am not to blame or to be punished for what may or may not have happened
  here in the past according to your, or anybody else's, perceptions.

> 
>>   If they expected to integrate and function well in Britsh society
>>   they ought to see about getting a good English education but that
>>   should be their choice!
> 
> Well, that's easy to say because the situation does not apply in
> Britain. I doubt that it would work if I look at Britains reputation
> of openness to other european languages.

  You asked the question!

  Most schools in Britain teach French and many other European languages -
  as do many European countries!

  Your perception of reality is distorted again!

> 
>>   As for being "fooled by federalist propoganda into believeing that
>>   Quebec was another British colony" - could you please provide a
>>   source reference for that "propoganda"? - I should very much like to
>>   see it out of curiosity. Though I have a strong suspicion that you
>>   shall be unable to produce it!
> 
> That was an exageration of course. Call it sarcasm if you want. I
> believe it is very stupid from the federal governement to "tell you"
> that Canada is a bilingual country were you can fully live in whatever
> of both official language you want anywhere. First, it is not true,
> and second, it's a provincial matter, not a federal matter. And third,
> it resulted in expectations from your part that could not be
> fullfilled by your new home.

  Ah - just as I suspected.

  Well that is the way it is: and I'm dealing with it the best way I
  know how in a democratic society (While it remains so!)

> 
> Nevertheless, I personnally think that a lot of the language laws
> should be softened. But, not because of so-called "canadian
> bilinguism" abstract principle, and certainly not with the current
> situation of francophones in the rest of Canada.


  I am happy to hear you say that though I'm not sure what you mean
  by it.


-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||