From: 4224_5201@uwovax.uwo.ca (John LaRocque)
Subject: Rd: Legalized discrimination in Quebec
Organization: University of Western Ont, London
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 23:37:54 GMT

In article <9ya4VB2w164w@ham.almanac.bc.ca>, emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca writes:

>>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.

What I am having problems with is the whole IDEOLOGY that Canada must
educate all of its people in the two "official" languages, regardless
of how small the minority in question is. (this applies to Chicoutimi,
as well). Bilingualism is nice to have, but not a real necessity in
Canada, and so few people have actually taken the time to analyse
why the policy was invented in the first place (hint hint, not to
make English kids bilingual)

>>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.

Do you agree with me that section 23 of the Charter of Rights is completely
unnecessary? Just a question.....

>>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.

Noone would disagree with the idea that Canadians have a right to a
court interpreter if they do not speak English or French. But I disagree
with the whole idea that if we only throw money at various minority
and cultural heritage groups, we can "preserve" their culture. Cultures
were not meant to be put on display in museums, and no government can
seriously think that this is possible today. I will explain later why
I think that more than half of the francophones hors Quebec are "dead ducks"
and will not be here 30 years from now. And if 99% of the francophones
in BC can order their stamps in English, why hire a francophone stamp
person? A good question not to be ignored. 

>>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.

There was an article in the Globe & Mail last year on just that subject.
Two Quebec economists put together a study of the assimilation of 
francophones. The conclusions: the only place in Canada with a NEAR ZERO
rate of assimilation are francophone populations contiguous with the
Quebec/NB and Quebec/Ontario border. Everywhere populations shrink.
Everywhere sons and daughters of francophones assimilate to the the
English majority. I suggest that things are so bad that no amount of
money - not even BILLIONS - can save their communities from dissappearing.
It is inevitable. And the politicians are unwilling to admit that they
have failed in imposing a nation-wide bilingualist vision of
Canada that could stop the disappearance of francophone commmunities
outside Quebec.

>>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?

Of course it will. But it will not stop the inevitable. Even in St-Boniface
the facts are clear: francophones, after persecution in the past and
current demographic trends, will be just another minority. Nothing can
change 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. 

I am not implying it. I am saying it out loud. The imposition of minority-
language guarantees will not stop the decline and fall of francophone 
communites outside Quebec. Listen, if you doubt me, count the percentage
of French speakers outside Quebec for the last 50 years. There IS a 
difference. Even in today's "modern" bilingual Canada, demographic trends
have NOT FOUND ONE province where the percentage of francophone populations
has dropped drastically. It is tragic. I would even call it cultural
extermination (in the past). But it is inevitable, and trying to stop
it is a waste of time and money.
 
>>> 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.

Nothing I hate more than the bigots are all the "guilty"  English
Canadians who want to make up for past sins by showering on their father's
victims government money and hoping it will make up for all of their
father's errors. It makes me sick. What paternalism! The bilingual
Canada is a crutch for the guilt-seekers amending for the past. And
it will not repair the damage of previous generations. Francophones have
always felt home in ONLY ONE PLACE - Quebec. Everywhere else they will
always be seen as a minority - either pitied or ignored or hated, but
never full members of a society. History has made them outcasts. They
are forgotten.

> 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. 

In the early 20th century, ONE BRAVE CANADIAN fought for the values you
profess, and he was shunned by every anglophone politician in the country.
Henri Bourassa was a Liberal MP who believed in an independent Canada
that respected the rights of French Canadians in every province. What
happened to him. His prime minister, the British toady, William Laurier,
allowed the extermination of French education in Manitoba. The same leader
sent Canadian troops to South Africa to promote British imperialism, stop
the evil Boers and provide the Brits with diamonds and a passage to India.
History's first Concentration Camps were practiced here, as Boers died.

Those values could have been practised years ago when they could have 
actually been of some use. But history had forgotten this brave man and
his words and deeds. Henri Bourassa, French Canada's greatest federal
politician, founder of Le Devoir, defender of francohpone minorites and
a Canada independent of British imperialism, a leader who fought for what
he believed and would not compromise no matter how unpopular his stand
was in parts of the country. He is now forgotten by Canadians
of his era. Only in Quebec do people appreciate what he has done. Only
in Quebec to people realize the heritage of this man. 

> 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.)

that being the case....

> 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!"

These people are dreaming. The Liberal paradise invented by Pearson and
Trudeau and continued by the federal Tories will flounder and die. The
cultural genocide of French Canada has already been completed. Nothing
can bring it back. Only pride in their roots and their country and their
willingness to fight for what has always been theirs.

> 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.

the Brockville incident happened months before it was widely publicized
in Quebec. You are correct here - a sensationalistic media. The same media
also blew the language debate completely out of proportion regarding 178.
They manipulated people into linking Meech Lake with this law. Another
boo-boo from Bou-Bou, a negotiator who never gets what he asks for and
whose skills have been widely exaggerated (until now) in the Quebec media.
In a way, the death of Meech is clearly the fault of this political loser.

>>> 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. 

Yes it has...

>>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. 

No, those are facts....

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

> That, too, remains to be seen.

Quebec sovereignty is inevitable. If not next year, in the next decade or
so.

>>> 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.

What a snotty attitude. This snide cultural superiority over Americans.
Listen buddy, what heroes did you have as a kid. I will bet you a five
spot that all of your tv and movie heroes were American. The only
diffence beween us and them is Quebec and the political elite. In essence
there is no difference between Washington and Ottawa, the city halls
of Port Huron, Michigan or of Sarnia, Ontario. And the NFB! You must be
joking. Name me one NFB production that Canadians actually remember
(excluding communist propaganda like the Bethune documentary or the
liberal propaganda levelled against USA in If You Love This Planet).
Nada. Nothing. NFB has helped artists but has had NO impact on the public
at large. Fooey on you nationalistic jingoistic Canadians (yes, you
are a jingo). And as for the CBC, what a joke. Have you seen the new
National. The only important thing the CBC has ever done is Hockey
Night in Canada and the news at 10. Once again - nada, nothing.

In Quebec they actually make films that people watch. Hey, Ding et Dong
had the highest box office receipts of last year, and nobody in English
Canada saw it. Or the world wide acclaim of Denys Arcand or Jean-Claude
Lauzon. All of English Canada's stars have moved to the USA to make
it big.

>>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. 

BULLSHIT! What politician said "A British subject I was born, a British
subject I will die" ? Hint: he executed Riel. What politician said, "When
Britian is at war, Canada is at war ? Hint: he gave Manitobans the Manitoba
School act and sent volunteers to fight for King and Empire in South Africa.
Only in French Canada did people say "Our country is Canada, not Britain".
I admire the Americans for one thing: they achieved true independence. They
said no to the monarchy, no to the UK and created a country founded on the
principles of individual freedom and democracy. Do you realize HOW LONG
Canadians had to wait for that? 

And as for slavery, Americans may have invented it, but Canada sure as
hell was not going to take them in as refugees. And the Chinese, blown
up in mine blasts in the Rockies to build our "national railroad". Kind
liberal Canada my ass. My country killed people. My country persescuted
minorites. My country is no better than the USA. 
 
>>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.

I do not fear for Quebec's future without Canada. Therein is the difference
of opinion. 

>>> 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.

You are dreaming in technicolor. While it may be a wonderful thing to
offer these services, it is only slowing the inevitable. What you do not
want to admit is that Trudeau sold the country a bill of goods, enshrined
it in a constitution, and brainwashed a whole generation on the Canada that
we love today (we are better than the US, yes we are, kind, generous and
more BS...). The things that you consider essential to Canada's survival
(bilingualism), I consider a convenience. It is time to invest in real
priorities - like new industries, instead of bailing out old ones. It
is time to invest in the future instead of making up for the past. In
short - abandon the Canada that has failed and replace it with a Canada
that is truly ready for the future. Abandon the legacy that the Federal
Liberal party has given the Canadian people.

> 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
-- 

John P. LaRocque
vader@uwo.ca
University of Western Ontario
London, Ontario


"Urk..urk..."
"Apology accepted, Captain Needa", Darth Vader
-- 

John P. LaRocque
vader@uwo.ca
University of Western Ontario
London, Ontario


"Urk..urk..."
"Apology accepted, Captain Needa", Darth Vader
Xref: sparky can.politics:10716 can.general:5948 soc.culture.canada:9353