From: 4224_5201@uwovax.uwo.ca (John LaRocque)
Subject: Re: Legalized Discrimination in Quebec
Organization: University of Western Ont, London
Distribution: can
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 00:41:55 GMT

In article <PoH1VB2w164w@ham.almanac.bc.ca>, emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca writes:
> rouxclau@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Roux Claude) writes:

> There are always examples, in all cultures, of bigotry and intolerance. 
> It would be a mistake, however, to brand all those who criticize Quebec's 
> language laws as either bigots or intolerant.
> 
> Disagreeing with Quebec's treatment of anglophones does not mean that the 
> person agrees with the treatment of francophones elsewhere in Canada. Two 
> wrongs, however, do not make a right. 

I don't understand where francophones hors Quebec entered in the debate.

For example, would you agree with the statement that every francophone in
British Columbia should have as wide a legal access to publically financed
education in the French language? I would rather spend the equivalent
amount of money getting all those ESL students (English as a second language)
in Vancouver into an educational environment where they would learn the
English language. English Quebecers and francophone hors Quebec are not
part of the same equation.

> I think any reasonable person would agree that there has been a 
> tremendous improvement in the availability of services en francais in the 
> rest of Canada in the past twenty years. Immersion schools, french 
> schools, the availability of services from federal government agencies, 
> french radio and television coverage, etc, have all increased 
> dramatically from that provided in 1965.

What needs to be asked is if legal guarantees for ANY linguistic minorities
are neccessary. Has bilingualism stopped the so-called evils of "separatism"?
Has immersion in the French language REALLY taught English kids what is 
going on in Quebec? And twenty years from now, does it really matter if
some post office in Victoria or Edmonton or St Johns offers services in
French? And you think that if we get even MORE of this, things will improve
and Quebecers will wake up one day and say "Federalism is everythings, 
sovereignty is nothing". This is nuts. And just why Quebec will never get
ANY deals, federalist or otherwise, which will stop the problem. Thank
you, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, for hanging the future of Quebec around the
necks of the shrinking francohphone population outside Quebec. You have 
insured that this country will never survive past the year 2000.

> (Is it enough? No. Does it need to be improved? Certainly)

It will never make a real difference in Quebec if one more franco-Manitoban
has access to French education or French services. As I have said before,
if French Canadians want to remain in a society that can support the
GROWTH and EXPANSION of the French language and French Canadian culture,
spending billions on translating laws in French or immersion for English kids
or guaranteeing French services and education will ONLY SLOW THE EVENTUAL
DEATH of the commuaute francophone  hors Quebec. Only in Quebec will you
find a society that can offer all of the things that federalist Liberals
and Tories have failed to impose on English Canada: a culture that functions
in French. 

> For many of us, the goal, as we saw it, was a society where citizens of 
> either French or English were comfortable with the use of either 
> language, and where services would be available in the language of 
> choice. A "civilized" world, where we tolerated and appreciated each 
> other. 

A dead dream, and a very expensive one. Learn a new language on your own.

> For many of those who bought into that view, and supported the extension 
> of francophone services even where hardly any francophones existed, we 
> saw Quebec as that kind of tolerant society we could all work towards. 
> When bills 101 and 178 were passed, many in English Canada felt betrayed 
> because rather than promoting what we had perceived ( naively, no doubt) 
> as a bilingual society, it now appeared Quebec was interested only in a 
> unilingual francophone society.

Betrayed? These laws are not perfect, and certainly not ideal, but the
thought of being "betrayed" in English Canada. What nonsense! Quebec will
never be a "unilingual" society, with a shrinking anglophone community
bolstered by immigrant "allophones", and a North American marketplace
that functions in English. What all Quebecers want is a future where
the French language can thrive in the one corner in North America where
francophones have a majority. Ask them and they will tell you this.
Opponents and supporters of 101 and 178 will tell you this. And the 
status of francophones hors Quebec never even enters the equation, nor
should they.

> In fact, I'll bet if you can find records of public opinion polls in TROC 
> regarding the general feeling towards Quebec's constitutional 
> aspirations, that you'll find a tremendous shift against "giving Quebec 
> anything" after the passing of 101 and 178. People who here-to-fore has 
> supported many of those aspirations stopped doing so out of this sense of 
> betrayal. And when you combined this feeling with those who did'nt care, 
> those who were genuinely concerned about the way government would have 
> been structured, and the red-necks who have always hated whatever they 
> don't understand, the pendulm swung.

Talk about emotionalism! "betrayal", "giving Quebec anything" and such.
What English Canadians do not want to admit is that a small minority
of French-speaking politicians in Ottawa imposed on Canada a vision that
neither united the country or achieved their objectives. The bilingual
Canada has failed. Separatism has not died. And these policies are LAW,
so not matter what, THINGS WILL NOT CHANGE. There will never be a 
reasonable constitutional arrangement that will keep Quebec in Canada.

> And just as Quebecois don't feel understood by TROC, TROC doesn't feel 
> understood by Quebec, either. Generalizations that lump all of Canada 
> together with the uSA as an "English" culture makes us seethe, because we 
> DON'T feel like Yanks. (And don't want to, either.)

Do you? I'll tell you something. I grew up in South-Western Ontario and 
the only difference between the USA and English Canada is the favourite
sport to watch on the weekend (hockey/football). Look at pop music.
Look at cinema. Look even at the politicians. The ONLY difference between
Canada and the USA is that one geographical region (Quebec) has an
overwhelming majority of French speaking people. 

After the Conquest, we were canadiens and you were British. After
Confederation, we were canadiens francais and you were British Canadians.
After WW II we were canadiens francais and you were English Canadians.
After Pearson, we called ourselves Quebecois in Quebec, and you called
yourselves anglophone Canadians and us francophone Canadians. We have always
been different. 

We will never be citizens of the same country or have the
same vision. To you, it is bilingualism and multiculturalism and Canada's
geography that unites the country. To us it is our common history as
both a majority and a minority, surviving despite assimilation and
conquest and even our "own" institutions like the Church or our
own politicians. Continuing to survive, and prosper, as an independent
and largely French speaking community called Quebec, linked to the rest
of the continent economically, culturally and historically, and linked
to a country called Canada. That is the fundamental difference, and we
willl never bridge the chasm.

> Back to my main point, however. It's certainly possible to oppose 
> Quebec's language laws on principle without being either anti-Quebec or 
> anti-francophone. And many of us who oppose the Quebec laws also support 
> the extension of francophone services in TROC.

As if that matters anymore now that the dirty work of so many years ago
has already been achieved. If you care that much about Anglo Quebecers,
then oppose (as you already do!) bad laws that target their community. If
you care about the survival and GROWTH of the French language, than ask
yourself if it would be better to throw money at a doomed minorty outside
Quebec, or to support the existance of a country called Quebec that can
maintain and extend the survival of its francophone majority.

> emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca  (Robert Smits, Ladysmith B.C.)
> 
> The Vital Precept
> 
> One vital precept isn't taught
> sufficiently imperiously:
> that other people didn't ought
> to take themselves too seriously   - Piet Hein
-- 

John P. LaRocque
vader@uwo.ca
University of Western Ontario
London, Ontario


"Urk..urk..."
"Apology accepted, Captain Needa", Darth Vader
Xref: sparky can.politics:10692 soc.culture.british:17408 soc.culture.australian:5121