Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Legalized discrimination in Quebec
From: emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 08:43:31 PST
Distribution: can
Organization: Robert Smits

John P. LaRocque (vader@uwo.ca) writes:

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 don't disgree entirely with comments by Quebecois posters that the 
treatment of francophones in the rest of Canada as far as educational 
availability in French goes is often not as extensive as the availability
of English education in Quebec, and beyond that, I support making the 
availability of French language education as widespread as possible. 		

Obviously, in B.C., where there is less than 2% of the population with 
French as a mother tongue, there will be a lesser amount of French
education than in other areas of the country. And there is no reason 
why we can't accomodate those students who want to learn en francais 
and the students who need ESL courses.

>> 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"?

I'm not convinced that guarantees are of any but symbolic value, and I'm 
not in favour of them.

>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? 

Of course immersion in French doesn't teach English kids what's going 
on in Quebec! It's not designed to! It teaches them the French language,
not Quebec politics, history and culture. Just as Quebec education doesn't 
seem to make Quebec citizens understand very well what's happening in 
Alberta or B.C. I do think it important, however that francophone 
Canadians can have access to federal government services in French, 
and conversely, that anglophone Canadians can have access in English 
wherever they are.

>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.
>

First, I'm not all all sure that the francophone population outside 
of Quebec is shrinking, or if it is, that it is still shrinking at the
rate it did in the 50's and 60's. And second, I've not argued that
providing francophone services in TROC will prevent Quebec separatists 
from arguing for that option. All I'm saying is, that because this 
country contains both francophones and anglophones, we should 
accomodate citizens with both official languages wherever possible.


>> (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,

I've never argued that it will. It may make a real difference to franco
phone canadians living in Manitoba, however, and what's wrong with that?

>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. 
>

You seem to be implying that expending ANY effort at encouraging the 
provision of francophone services outside of Quebec is a waste of time 
and effort because it won't have any impact in Quebec. I disagree. The
use of French in TROC MAY eventually, in several centuries or so, die 
out (I don't think so, however), but if it does, it shouldn't be because
we've thrown up our hands and refused to make any effort for that not 
to occur. 

>> 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.

And I too, would like to see the French language to continue to thrive
in Quebec. (and elsewhere, too, if possible). I was not saying that 
Quebec had "betrayed" English Canada. I was saying that many English 
Canadians felt that way because they listened to politicians from Quebec 
- yes, like Trudeau (and however you feel about him, for English 
Canadians he represented Quebec to us) tell us that we needed to extend 
francophone services across the country, to allow francophones to feel 
at home wherever they went.

And those of us who supported those francophone services, (and fought 
with the bigots over it) thought we were doing something that was right, 
fair, and what the francophones of Canada (who, after all, mostly live
in Quebec) wanted. 

After ten or fifteen years of this, these same Canadians who have been 
supporting the extension of francophone services in TROC because it was
fair and a reasonable thing to do, see the Quebec government RESTRICTING 
the use of English in Quebec with 101 and 178. To almost everyone outside 
Quebec, the language laws seem petty and unfair. (And unworkable in the 
long run, too.)

But to those people outside Quebec who had been supporting the extension 
of francophone services it seemed like a double slap in the face. First, 
a government representing people whose cause they thought they had been 
championing passed laws that seemed to say - if you're English, get lost, 
you're not a part of Quebec - and blatantly discriminated against English 
Quebeckers, and second, they had to put up with all the bigots in English 
Canada who were now saying, "why should we be fair and reasonable with
Quebec? - look how unfair THEY are!"

I'm not saying these views are accurate, only that they were and are
widespread. And they're not helped much by a media both in Quebec and 
TROC that is more interested in sensational "sound bites" and instant
analysis than in accurately reflecting us to each other.

>
>> 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.

Of course it's emotional! I've been trying to explain why people feel
the way they do! Emotion is caused by many things, and accuracy usually
doesn't play a very big role in it.

>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. 

No it hasn't. Yet. But that's not a reason we shouldn't have tried it.

>The bilingual Canada has failed. 

Not yet it hasn't. 

>Separatism has not died. 

That's fairly obvious.

>And these policies are LAW, so not matter what, THINGS WILL NOT CHANGE. 

That remains to be seen. 

>There will never be a reasonable constitutional arrangement that will 
>keep Quebec in Canada.

That, too, remains to be seen.

>> 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. 
>
I too, grew up in Ontario. Oshawa, Barrie, Orillia, North Bay, 
Missisaugua and half a dozen little places you've never heard of. I
see a great deal of difference between Canadians and Americans. 
Our readiness to help others as evidenced by our social programs, 
medicare, etc, a sense of fair play, our lack of jingoistic nationalism,
our support of public institutions like the CBC and the NFB. Canada 
is NOT the same as the USA.

>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. 
>

No, we didn't. We called ourselves Canadians. You're the one making the 
distinctions based on language. 


>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.
>

We already ARE citizens of the same country, even though we obviously
don't share the same vision. I too, hope Quebec survives as an 
prosperous, largely French speaking community, although I hope it chooses
to remain within Canada. I hope too, that Canada survives as a nation, 
for I fear greatly for Canada's future without Quebec.

>> 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.
>

Look, John, neither you or I were responsible for what you call "the 
dirty work of so many years ago." All we can do is the best we can 
under the present circumstances. And I do not consider that the 
francophone citizens outside Quebec are "doomed". It seems to me that 
there are fairly active francophone communities in both Manitoba and 
New Brunswick that are not dying out, in spite of far more difficulties
than faced in Quebec.

emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca  (Robert Smits, Ladysmith B.C.)

Support your fellow Canadians. We should buy lousy Canadian novels 
instead of importing lousy American novels. - Johnny Wayne
Xref: sparky can.politics:10861 soc.culture.british:17676 soc.culture.australian:5169