From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Education
Date: 27 Jul 92 14:13:51 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article (Evan Leibovitch) writes:
>>It used to be illegal to teach in french in
>>a lot of provinces.
>
>Yes it did. It isn't now.

It's too late. The damage has been done and is irrepairable.

]The availability of French services outside Quebec is increasing. The
]availability of English services in Quebec is decreasing.

It still has a hell of a long way before it's anywhere near the
availibility of what exists in Quebec.

]TROC is progressing by learning from its mistakes of history.
]Quebec is not.

Au contraire, je crois qu'il a  finalement un peu compris...

]]In Quebec, you'll find
]]english schools (for anglo-quebecois) almost anywhere. Even if you
]]have only a 5% portion of anglophones.
]
]Like where?

Like Hull (someone gave a 6% figure the other day).

]"Your children will be educated in French" *BECAUSE* it is forbidden to
]teach them English.

"Your children will be educated in English" *BECAUSE* reasonable
french facilities don't exist because of historical intolerance.

]The biggest proof of the discrimination of the English is by their
]exodus. If they are so well treated as you constantly attempt to
]mislead, why are they leaving in such large numbers?

Because of two points: decline of the economy of Montreal to the
profit of more western cities, and because they felt that they weren't
the colonialist anymore. They couldn't remain in their own little
shinny protected anglophone world without doing some adaptation to the
rest of the society.

]If a merchant won't speak to you in the language of your choice, then
]don't buy from them. If enough customers act this way, then these
]businesses either:
]
]1) go bankrupt;

And then they'll leave and blame it on racism from teh Quebecois.  :-)
That's another reason I didn't think about.

]It always amazed me that the Quebec francophones who were so fascinated
]by legislating English-dominated business away, had never thought of
]boycotting them instead. The boycott is a perfectly legitimate tool to
]implement change, and it infringies nobody's rights. On the other hand,
]it *affirms* the rights of stores to operate -- and of people to shop --
]in any manner they wish.

Francophones (and latins in general) have always feel more comfortable
with legislating, rather than letting the power to judges, monarchs
and tradition. That's why the civil code relies more explicit laws
rather than jurisprudence.
Que veux-tu, c'est l'esprit cartesien...

]An organized boycott of English companies and stores who gave poor
]service in French would have made most of them adapt the same policies
]as the current language laws now force upon them. In might also have
]encouraged a new generation of more-sensitive businessmen, anglophone
]and francophone both, without restricting a thing.

I have no doubt about that. Unfortunately, we didn't have a Ghandi,
and anyways, passive resistance is not our game... :-)
-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
                                      Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM