Newsgroups: can.politics,can.general,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Legalized Discrimination in Quebec
From: emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 20:15:36 PST
Distribution: can
Organization: Robert Smits

rouxclau@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Roux Claude) writes:

> 
>  Ce que je trouve merveilleux dans ce debat sur la discrimination au Quebec
> c'est la facon dont le debat lui-meme est organise. Or donc, les francophones
> y sont traines dans la boue, on les accuse de manquer d'ouverture d'esprit
> d'etre d'accord avec un systeme a la limite du faschisme etc.. Pensez donc
> ces pauvres anglophones de Montreal, en particulier ceux du fameux square,
> subissant vexation sur vexation, l'horreur de la situation me chavire le
> coeur, je cessairai donc la.. Tout cela pour dire que les Quebecois me semble
> ils devraient prendre exemple sur l'ouverture d'esprit de leurs concitoyens
> anglophones et par exemple on pourrais commencer cette ouverture par un
> unilinguisme forcene, puisque l'impression qui se degage c'est que pour etre
> ouvert d'esprit il ne faut s'exprimer que dans une langue (ici par un hasard
> curieux c'est l'anglais.. bizarre, bizarre vous avez dit bizarre?).
>  Il est quand meme incroyable, dans un pays officiellement bilingue, que
> l'apprentissage d'une langue etrangere soit facultative partout sauf au Quebe
> ou l'apprentissage de l'anglais est obligatoire dans les ecoles francaises.
> Dans les ecoles anglaises du Quebec, l'apprentissage du francais est... 
> facultatif... Yeeeeee.. Le premier pas lorsque l'on veut comprendre une socie
> il me semble que c'est l'apprentissage de la langue de cette societe. 
>  Je n'accepterai les remarques insultantes sur le manque d'ouverture des
> Quebecois que lorsque ces remarques auront ete redigees dans ma langue, me
> prouvant ainsi que la personne a pu avoir un contact direct, personnel avec
> la societe dont il parle et non une image deforme transmise par la rumeur 
> publique... Me traiter d'intolerant et de raciste en.. anglais, quand la
> plupart des francophones du reseau sont capables de repondre dans cette langu
> alors que telle n'est pas le cas pour la plupart des repondants anglophones
> me semble en soit la reponse la plus claire qui soit a leurs insultes et a
> leur ignorance...
> 
>  Claude


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 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.

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

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. 

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.

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.

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.)

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.


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
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.australian