From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics,can.general,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Legalized Discrimination in Quebec
Date: 16 Dec 92 14:35:40 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 5332

From article <1992Dec15.211830.1@uwovax.uwo.ca>, by 4224_5201@uwovax.uwo.ca
John LaRocque):
>
> .....
> 
> I don't think that Quebecers could ever get eye for an eye. Just what
> do you think would happen today if they passed a Quebec version of the
> Manitoba School act - with NO guarantee of English education.

The Can. Chrtr. of Rts. & Frdms DOES guarantee official language minority
education where numbers warrant - in Manitoba as in every province in
Canada - except in Quebec where the Can. Chrtr. provision are not fully
applied. :-(

M. LaRocque also seems to be unaware of the effect of chapter VIII of
Bill 101.

> right - and the issue was never about getting revenge anyways. As
> for English "making up for the past", I don't think ANY amount of
> bilingualism will bring back the French communitees which once sprawled
> all over the West, but continue to dissappear as their kids join
> the "majority" and lose their culture. 
>                 

M. LaRocque suggested that francophones hors Quebec are afraid of the
consequences of Quebec seccession.

Given the Quebec Governments record of intervening in minority language
matters hors Quebec AGAINST the interests of minority francophone
communities I suggest that those francophone communities hors Quebec would
probably be better able to defend their own interests WITHOUT "help" from
the Quebec government - post seccession.

>    As for multiculturalism that is an even biggert fraud... English
> Canada has always wanted to be a melting pot, but couldn't because of
> Quebec. 

I don't accept that!

Canada is not like the U.S.A. in that at all!

> So they invented bilingualism and multiculturalism so that
> French minorities could get token services and the English could continue
> to find ways to condemn EVERYTHING the Quebec government did to raise the
> status of the majority of the population. 

Another less than accurate statement.

"the English" do not "condemn EVERYTHING the Quebec government did [or does]
to raise the status of the majority..." (whatever "raise the status" is 
supposed to mean). They DO condemn violations of fundamental human rights
and freedoms - like certain, but not all, provisions of Bill 101 & Bill 178
etcetera.

> Quebec's
> francisation laws for the workplace were the BEST means of getting 
> Quebec's industries to work in the French language, instead of exclusively
> in English, and to start hiring qualified French speaking Quebecers to
> fill top spots in firms. Even today, with the "new" franco-business,
> a good part of the Quebec economic engine is in the hands of English
> Quebecers. This is not alarmism, just the facts. 30 years of reform 
> have not solved all the anomalies in Quebec. And the goal of true
> Maitre chez nous is not complete.
> 

Would M. LaRocque care to describe how the completion of the "Maitre
chez nous" "goal" will be recognised?

> 
> Don't be sheepish about it. In every way Quebec is a NATION. It is not
                                           ^^^^^^
> sovereign (not yet!) but Quebec's nationhood should never be in doubt.
> A nation with historical roots deeper than many other North American
> communites. A nation with a common culture, a common language and a
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> common history.

"Quebec" includes a substantial English community that M. LaRocque seems
to have left out of his definition of the Quebec "nation". :-(

This is not surprising. Denying the existence of something you don't
like, however, doesn't make it go away!

> A nation where the attitudes towards life and living
> are not as oppressive and closed minded as other Canadian provinces.

:-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

>> What about this one?  In a report about NB, a few years ago, they shown
>> a panel in English only for a store in a francophone communauty.
>> The head office of the company has decided not to advertise in French,
>> even in a store was deserving a 100% French-speaking town.  How would
>> you deal with this one?  Boycotting the store?  Boycott is a sign of
>> fight and war.  Writting letters?  Having a law?  What would YOU do????
> 

Why do anything?

> Complacency is the death of all communities. .....

We're doomed! We're doomed!

>                                         ..... A good way to protest is to
> ask for everything in FRENCH ONLY. That should confuse the businessman. If
                                                                          ^^
> he wants business, he will have to cater to his customers. And that means
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That's right! Let the market decide!

> accomodating the French. Even in Montreal, they have shopkeepers who are
> completely fluent in French and ready to serve you. Is that too much
> to ask.

If you are asking whether allowing the business to advertise in the languages
he thinks his customers want or need is too much to ask - apparently it IS
too much to ask in Quebec!


-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Xref: sparky can.politics:10844 soc.culture.british:17644 soc.culture.australian:5159