From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Access to English school: quotes
Date: 2 Sep 92 13:24:20 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 5680

There were a couple of distortions in this one that could not be
left unchecked:-

From article <plante.715383904@iros1>, by plante@IRO.UMontreal.CA (Frederic Plante):
> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
> 
>>From article <plante.715113702@iros1>, by plante@IRO.UMontreal.CA (Frederic Plante):
> 

Let me get one thing straight here: I was accused of :

> 
>>> yet you would support discrimination based on country of origin,
> 
 
: that is why I stated :   

>>  I am in favour of total freedom of choice.
> 
>>  I do not support discrimination.
> 

: As I said in another posting : one can advocate a morally and ethically
desirable position to illustrate one's lack of support for a morally and
ethically undesirable one. I.E. I state that "I am in favour of freedom
of choice" and that "I do not support discrimination" to illustrate that
I do not "support discrimination based on country of origin" as accused.

I am not actively campaigning for "freedom of choice" because it is not
likely to happen in Quebec. I acknowledge that. (It is for pragmatic
considerations like that that Alliance Quebec doesn't take strong stands
on matters of principle). In that sense it is hypocritical of me to
campaign for "English" access. It is a step in the right direction.

>>  I see the Chambers' Task Force recommendation as a step in the right
>>  direction.
> 
> In what direction?  Less discrimination?  They do not recommand less
> discrimination, but worst discrimination.

In the direction of the morally and ethically desirable "freedom of
choice".

> 
> I am sure you say that this is a step in the right direction because YOU
> could get YOUR children educated in english.  And I am sure you would get 
> less vocal about education in Quebec once you get your children in english
> school. 
> 

When I started out on this road (shortly after Bill 178 woke me up!) the
probability of what you suggest was indeed very high. Now that I have
researched the issue and have a better understanding of the history
behind it; now that I have become politically "involved", I have duties and
responsibilities that extend beyond my own family (which, naturally, takes
priority - most of the time :-) )

If I had simply wanted to get my children into English school there are a
couple of loopholes available to the financially privileged (P.Q. cabinet
ministers, for example :-) ). Private schooling is one of them.

There is a principle here which is important to me (and to others) - that
_parents_ should be the ones to decide how and where their children are
educated, in the public school system.

>>> which, IMHO, is worst (think about it, all immigrants now have the
>>> same rights as the majority in Quebec; should we change the law to do
>>> this, an immigrant from, say, Germany, would not have the same rights
>>> as one from the U.K. or the US.).
> 
>>  Is this any different from the current law which does this: an English
>>  family from, say, England, does not have the same rights as one whose
>>  parents were educated in English in Canada?
> 
>>  That sounds like "discrimination based on country of origin" to me.
> 
>>  Thank you for your support! :-)
> 
> Your getting good at distorting the facts inorder to support your views
> (like the comparison you made between South Africa and Quebec, which is 
> totally irrelevant).

I will say this again for those who still keep accusing me of comparing
Quebec to South Africa. I did not! I compared the wording of Bill 101
related to access to English school with the wording of the _Law_ in S.A.
related to access to "White" school. I told people to make their own
assessment (I think I said "draw your own conclusions")

Which "facts" did I distort?

Bill 101 discriminates: against Francos and all immigrants landed after
26th August, 1977.

The Chambers recommendation also discriminates: against non Anglos.

The Canadian Constitution itself discriminates: against Francos and
"mother tongue" Anglos in Quebec. Also against Anglos in ROC.

The law in S.A. restricting access to "White" schools discriminates:
against non "Whites".

> 
> We are not talking about the same thing.  In every country in the world,
> there is discrimination between immigrants and natives (like, a polish
> immigrant cannot get his children educated in polish in the land of
> the free, the U.S.). 

We are not talking about the same thing:-

Polish is not an official language in the U.S.
English is an official language in Canada, it is _not_ a foreign
language in Quebec.

There are no public schools available in Polish (to the best of my
knowledge) in the U.S.
There are public schools available in English in Quebec.

> What the Chambers report is proposing is 
> discrimination between immigrants.  Now, in Quebec, there is no
> discrimination between immigrants.

What is an immigrant in Quebec?
Anyone who landed here after 26th August 1977?

People who landed here before that date have more civil rights than
people who landed after. (People who are here "temporarily" have more
rights than people that have settled "Permanently" too).

That _is_ discrimination between different classes of immigrants.

Some people who landed here before 1977 still haven't obtained their
Canadian citizenship. Some people that landed after that date are now
Canadian citizens.

So I repeat: What is an immigrant in Quebec?


-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada