From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: More on language rights in Quebec: The other side of the coin
Date: 19 Aug 92 15:30:39 GMT
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

The subject of the rights of English Quebecers has been thoroughly
discussed and I would like to sum up my position.

The English minority in Quebec is very privileged because of the
historical strength of the Anglo-Quebec culture and the generosity of
Franco-Quebecers.

If we admit the value of principles such as "equality" and "freedom",
we can judge those privileges.

In some ways the minority has been overpriviliged: Anglos have been
able to live in Quebec without learning French and have in the past
discriminated against Francos.

In some ways, now, the minority is underprivileged: the English
school system is threatened because it cannot accept immigrant
children; the visibility of the English community is restricted
unfairly.

If we do not admit the value of fundamental principles, and instead
take the hard-line nationalist view that the English and French are simply
two scorpions in a bottle, then "overprivileged" and "underprivileged"
have no meaning.  The two groups will simply fight it out.  On guard!

But that view is not my position.  "Overprivileged" _is_ a meaningful word.
Anglos must adapt to a Quebec where the French culture predominates.
"Underprivileged" is also a meaningful word.  Quebec must restore
Anglos' liberties.

                    --------------------------------

On both sides, though, people are trying to have it both ways.

On one side, Anglo die-hards repeat slogans about inalienable rights,
without giving a thought to what motivated the PQ to pass Law 101.

On the other side, hard-line Quebec nationalists portray the millions of
English-speakers on the North American continent as a monolithic bloc whose
representatives inside Quebec can fairly be repressed.  This view ignores
(as Steve Potter has said) the fact that English Quebec is a distinct
community, in spite of the fact (as Stewart Clamen has said) that Quebec
recognizes its distinct English community in a multitude of ways.  The
aggressive nationalist position denies the view that the most important
aspects of one's culture are local -- in one's neighbourhood, city, and
region -- a denial which undermines the nationalists' own demands for
more autonomy for Quebec.

English Quebecers are not Americans.  They derive no comfort from the
assurance that in a totally francized Quebec they would still be able to
watch Oprah.

What Francos demand for themselves on grounds of cultural distinctiveness
is necessarily owed to Anglos.  But Anglos do not expect much -- only the
removal of arbitrary restrictions which are definitely and conspicuously
damaging the English community.

                      --------------------------------

Having said this, I think it proper to add that apart from the sign law and
the restrictions on enrollment in English schools, I agree with all those
who have said that Quebec treats its minorities well.  English schools,
universities, hospitals, libraries, and other services abound.  While in
most cases they were created by the English with no help from the French,
and many services have in fact been eliminated since 1976 for political
reasons, and while a more rapid assault on English institutions was
ruled out because it might have provoked an uprising, we must nevertheless
be grateful for many tender mercies.  Merci pour ne pas avoir lance' une
attaque nucleaire contre Westmount!

                     ---------------------------------

Conclusion: I hope the English have their rights restored to them, on
grounds of solid principle, so that they will not have to view la majorite'
as an enemy, and no longer feel that their future in Quebec is limited.



--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com