Talk:Charter of the French Language/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Moved section

I find the article biased, showing how much "problems" the english/allophone people faced, without explaining that it's no different than the rest of Canada, where immigrants all go to english school, and that english-speakers can still all go to english school.

Immigrants to English Canada can choose the system, English or French, they wish their children to attend. Both anglophones and francophones there can choose which language of instruction they prefer. That would be one major difference between Canada and Quebec. If all immigrants and all anglos go to the English system, many of the 300 000 students in French immersion classes across Canada who went to the "wrong" school to register. Toddsschneider 19:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

If you go to France, you can't ask for english school, if you go to British Columbia, you can't ask for french school as well.

I can't speak for France at the moment, but I can speak about British Columbia. Oh yes, you can send your children to French public school, if you or your spouse are francophones. (They may have gotten the idea from Quebec's treatment of anglophones. It could be more open.) Here is the link: http://www.csf.bc.ca/default.php#Toddsschneider 15:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Oddly Alberta has no such restriction? There was a "French immersion" stream offered by the majority of high schools in my area. Although it rarely had more then one class per grade level per school and were often smaller classes. Manic-pedant 17:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

And MacPerson isn't a good source, he's biased, often made acticles close to racism against Québécois.

Everyone has a bias, you have a nationalist bias. The question is, can a person be fair and balanced? Don MacPherson of the Montreal Gazette is a good source, as he has been writing about Quebec issues for several years, and has great insider knowledge. He has not "often" made articles close to racism; can one find one of his articles of that kind? One cannot equate skepticism of Quebec nationalism with racism, it is about as useful as calling critics of Zionism or Israel "anti-semitic".Toddsschneider 15:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be good to inform wikipedians of the linguistic situation before and after bill 101. Otherwize, it is rather difficult to comprehend why this law was passed.

Currently, there is an empty Demographics of Quebec article that I will be expanding at some point. This article is the most logical place to present the statistics on mother tongue, language at home, language of work etc. If we are to make a good page on the demographic situation of Quebec, we will need to cover the introduction of Bill 101 because it clearly transformed the visage linguistique of Quebec. -- Mathieugp 23:10, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Also, I think this article should inform people of the fact that the intent of 1977 law was to make French, the language of the majority, the common public language of all Quebecers in the same way that English was the common public language in the other 9 provinces and the 50 American States of North America. Despite notable advances towards that goal, today French still is not the de facto common language in Quebec. -- Mathieugp 16:43, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think it is important to note that English is not supported as the common public language of English Canada or the United States by limiting the free public expression of other languages. It is certainly not supported by decrying the usage of languages other than the majority within private households, as the Office quebecois de la langue francaise has done in its most recent annual report (which claims, in a totalitarian manner that the use of English some or all of the time in a third of Montreal households is a problem).
The United States, moreover, has not even fixed English as an official langauge. Many communities within the United States support minority linguistic communities by providing services in those languages. The New York subway system, for example, posts in Spanish, Chinese and Russian. In Montreal, conversely, the public spaces are French spaces. English is the only non-French language seen in government publications, and only because of the English community's historical significance. No effort is made to reach speakers of third languages.
The Quebec government, in the Charter of the French Language, has shown an almost neurotic fixation on linguistic preservation that lends itself to the totalitarianistic approach of the infamous language police.
The goal to preserve the French language in Quebec are laudable. But don't try to tell me it's all cherries and ice cream. This article, in only having the official line, reads like a government document.
These quotes are taken from Mirror (a weekly English-language arts and entertainment paper):
"Tongue goons bully more ethnics"
In the last four weeks language cops have threatened two more allophone small business owners with prosecution unless they perfect their abilities to speak la langue de Molière. The latest batch of accusations suggest that the shop owners could be prosecuted under Sections 2 and 5 of Bill 101, which deal with the language of the workplace.
The two new recipients of the government threats -who have asked that their identities remain confidential for fear of reprisal-raise to four the total of immigrant shopkeepers threatened with prosecution this year. Earlier this spring, Pieros Karidogiannis, a dry cleaner, and Yvonne Friedman, a 72-year-old Jewish Holocaust survivor, were dealt similar threatening government missives.
(http://www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHIVES/2002/080802/front.html)
-- Richardvdf 11:45, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think that inside an Encyclopedia, it is important not to disinform people. Without any sort of explicit legislation, English imposes itself as the common public language of all citizens within all states of the US and all provinces of Canada except Quebec, where the language of the majority is not English. The reason is simple: in any give state, the dominant language is the language of socio-economic promotion. In the US and Canada, you need English to get a job. -- Mathieugp 16:15, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Could French also impose itself as the common public language of all citizens of Quebec without legislation? Maybe if it were an independent state it could. Maybe if it hadn't been colonized by British imperialists for over two centuries. However, the reality is that Quebec is a province inside a federation where English dominates. As if that were not enough, Quebec is right next to the United States. Under these conditions, some sort of linguistic management is necessary if we truly wish for Quebec French to remain alive. Without legislation, Quebec French and Quebec culture would go the dinosaure way like all those native american languages and cultures nobody cares about in America or the first language of immigrants to the US and Canada. -- Mathieugp 16:15, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Your assertion that the OLF decries the usage of languages other than French inside households is mistaken. The only thing that was ever of concern for the OLF and the Quebec government was the progression of French versus English among immigrants. Outside Quebec, where there is no competition for the English language, the overwhelming majority of immigrants gradually become bilingual (English and some other language) and over generations their original language (when it wasn't already English) is abandonned. In Quebec, there are two paths for social integration : either they learn the language of the majority in Canada and the US (English) or they learn the language of Quebec (French). Quebecers want to live in a modern society where all humans from all parts of the world come to live with them and share their culture. A melting pot of a sort, but in French rather than English. Needless to say that in the current state of the world, the challenge that Quebec has taken is not small, and one would be right by comparing it to the famous battle between David and Goliath. -- Mathieugp 16:15, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The US has no official language in the constitution it is true. The founding fathers didn't think it was necessary. They thought that English would become the common language on its own. These people evidently understood politics and demographics. -- Mathieugp
Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to think that the US and Canada have never legislated to promote or reinforce English at any point in history. The federal government of the US has passed a whole body of laws that make the US a de facto English-speaking nation. That is the opinion of the US Supreme Court and this opinion is based on more than substancial evidence. In addition, numerous US states have passed laws making English an official language. -- Mathieugp 16:15, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Despite all this, one little detail is very important not to go completely off-topic: Quebec is not in the US. Quebec is inside Canada, and Canada has two official languages English and French. The language policy of the federal government of Canada which frames numerous language related rights competes directly with the language policy of Quebec and greatly undermines its effort to saveguard French. This is where the battle is. -- Mathieugp 16:15, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The only thing that was ever neurotic and fixated was the obsession of the English Canadian corporate media against Bill 101, and the PQ from day 1 up until now. Also, there is no language police. This is an abuse of terms and a deformation of reality. How can Canada be a great liberal democracy and at the same time have an evil province that passes totalitarian laws? This is a huge contradiction isn't it? -- Mathieugp 16:15, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The Montreal subway has decided not to used multilingual signs. This decision was taken for a good reason in my opinion. How do you select which languages are to be put up? New York has chosen languages spoken by large populations, excluding all others. Every language that appears on exterior signs in big US cities is a language that is not at all endangered (English, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese). The Montreal public transport system uses symbols universially understandable by all humans for all things related to security and French for everything else. These are two different strategies for two different situations. -- Mathieugp 16:15, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"This decision was taken for a good reason in my opinion. How do you select which languages are to be put up? " Do you actually consider any of these memes? The answer to your question is simple: poll your population and use the 4 most used languages. I am bilingual and live in Montreal, but I am disgusted by the fact that emergency signs are french-only, occassionally with tiny english writing. The sooner this anti-democratic expression of social engineering is removed, the better. 74.56.218.173 19:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
There is no goal to "preserve" French in Quebec. Quebecers have the "right" to keep their language and culture in the only place in North America they can. This article is an encyclopedia article. It cannot include non-neutral opinions based on half-truths and a misunderstanding of the subject. Opinions published in non-academic and non-scientific publications such as corporate newspapers (The Gazette) or arts and entertainment weeklies (The Mirror) are often entertaining, but rarely are they of any sort of value in terms of information. -- Mathieugp 16:15, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Please don't embed your comments within mine. It makes it difficult to read. I'm posting my response to your message here. The text of the original message is below. (For this reading this discussion who are not mathieu, I'm referring to a message I got on my talk page. It follows below).
I can read French.
Until one of us writes a full article on the opposition to Bill 101, it fits well under the category of 'Opposition.' Contrary to your opinion, my sources are accurate. They reflect a prominent minority opinion, which though you may disagree with, cannot be said to be invalid. You should note that B'nai B'rith is respected internationally as a group in support of the rights of Jews. The Gazette is one of Montreal's most read daily newspapers. The Mirror is a widely circulated alternative newspaper.
My political opinion, and yours, are irrelevant in ultimately considering how the article should be constituted. In deleting a reference to a valid, minority point-of-view, you are showing a clear bias which harms the objectivity of the article. Wikipedia is not a medium for reproducing the official justifications of government policy; is it intended as a space to report objectively, and any reporting will show both positive and negative reactions to a given subject.
Until an article specifically on opposition is created, I will revert the page to its edited state. If you dispute the neutrality of the article, you are free to add a NPOV notice, but I think the article as a whole reflects both sides of the issue well. You might consider adding a section which shows the wide support the Charter has among Francophones and the perceived good in forcing immigrants to school their children in French. You should note the Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Conflict Resolution", particularly sections that call for better edits to be made instead of deletions.
Now here's what I'm responding to (written by mathieugp)
I wanted to inform you that I will revert your modifications to the Charter of the French Language. I could't see how to incorporate the changes. We will have to cover the topic if the legal dispute around Bill 101 and its repercussion the press in a full article eventually. Are you interested in this subject? If you read French and English , we can both work on it.
I have tried to reply to your comment in the Talk:Charter of the French Language page of the article. In short, I am sorry, but what you have added is not accurate. After looking at your sources, I came to understand how you had become malinformed on the subject. The mass publications you cited are engaged in the political battle against Quebec and they are far from presenting an objective point of view on anything related to Quebec politics. You have to be careful to read what the French language press also prints on the same topic. Reading both is truly essential.
If the subject interests you as much as it interests me, I can point you to some must read information. Until I know if you can read French, here are the few rare educated opinions on the Charter that were published in English. However, opinions are what they are. Some basic notions of law, politics, history and linguistics are truly needed to be able to grasp the issue of linguistic management. Here are the links:
A Legal Opinion on International Law, Language and the Future of French-speaking Canada by Ramsey Clark
Ethical Reflections on Bill 101 by Gregory Baum
Why we need Bill 101 by the Mouvement estrien pour le français
Let me know what you think. -- Mathieugp 16:43, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Richardvdf 23:06, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Also, just to refute some of your points: "Language police" is the commonly accepted term in the English language media throughout Canada, including the non-corporate CBC. I think, in that they that enforce provisions of the language law by ensuring things like font compliance (French lettering must be twice as big as non-French) and that all shopkeepers can speak French, the name and its pejorative connotation are deserved. Nowhere else in North America does any agency regulate the signage or speech proficiency of non-majority speakers, which is why in Toronto, New York, Los Angeles, Vancouver and myriad other cities you'll find neighbourhoods whose inhabitants cannot speak English and whose shops cater to these inhabitants with large, non-English signs. Ethnic neighbourhoods in New York, for example, are immediately distinguished from those in Montreal by the presence of prominent signs in languages other than English. In Little Korea, one of the many Chinatowns, Spanish Harlem, West Harlem, to name a few, one can find businesses and community organizations whose operators do not speak the language of the majority.
The most recent report of the OQLF _does_ comment on the prevalence of languages other than French in households in Montreal as a problem. Here's a quote:
En ce qui a trait à la langue d'usage de 1991 a 2001, le pourcentage de locuteurs fracophones semble être demeuré stable dans l'ensemble du Québec (83%), alors que celui des locuteurs anglophones a diminué pour passer de 11,2% à 10,5%. Le nombre de personnes qui utilisent le français au foyer est donc plus important que le nombre de personnes de langue maternelle française. Cependant, l'anglais comme langue d'usage continue à faire des gains de l'order de 2 %, alors que ceux du français ne dépassent pas 1,7 %. Ces gains sont d'autant plus préoccupants qu'en 2001, l'anglais est utilisé seul ou avec d'autres langues dans au moins un foyer sur trois dans l'île de Montréal (35,7 %), le français étant pour sa part utilisé dans deux foyers sur trois (66,6%).
(Rapport annuel de gestion 2003-2004, Office québécois de la langue française, p. 13)
I would suggest, as an opinion on the Charter of the French language and the point you made about the importance of the "language of promotion," that the Official Languages Act (of Canada) in tandem with the gains made the Charter of the French Language, is moving Canada towards a state in which competence in both languages is to some extent necessary for socioeconomic promotion (particularly in the federal service). Greater integration of commerce between Quebec and the rest of Canada is, I think, a means of ensuring that bilingualism becomes a prerequisite for citizens who wish to occupy the upper echelons of society.
But more to the point: It is unlikely that one of us will convince the other that his point of view is correct, we should be able to have an article that does not dogmatically mirror the views of the Québec government.
In quoting popular sources, I was trying to represent opposition to the Charter of the French language, not analyse whether that opposition is valid from a sociolinguistic perspective. Though the Montreal English press and B'nai B'rith aren't authoritative sources on sociology or linguistics, they do reflect the point of view of a prominent minority. Surely you cannot deny that.
Mathieugp insists on posting his replies to me to my talk page. I'm moving them here so they can receive a public hearing.

Mathieugp speaks

You wrote :

I can read French.

How well can you read it? -- Mathieugp 07:05, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Until one of writes a full article on the opposition to Bill 101, it fits well under the category of 'Opposition.' Contrary to your opinion, my sources are accurate.

I have not said that your sources were innacurate, only the "information" they provide. An opinion cannot become valid or invalid. That is a misunderstanding of the very meaning of the word "opinion". An argument can be valid or invalid, not an opinion. Please, re-read what I have read carefully. -- Mathieugp 07:05, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

They reflect a prominent minority opinion, which though you may disagree with, cannot be said to be invalid.

This argument commits a logical fallacy which we call Appeal to the majority or argumentum ad populum in Latin. -- Mathieugp 07:05, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You should note that B'nai B'rith is respected internationally as a group in support of the rights of Jews.

Judging the validity or invalidity of arguments, assertions, facts, or opinion on the merit or prestige of their source is a common fallacy which in English we call Appeal to authority, argumentum ad verecundiam in Latin. The OLF is a government institution defending the rights of all Quebecers to live in French in North America, yet that doesn't make everything they say something we must believe blindly. The only judge is your own reason. -- Mathieugp 07:05, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Gazette is one of Montreal's most read daily newspapers. The Mirror is a widely circulated alternative newspaper.

This is very good. I can see at least three different types of fallacies. An Appeal to the majority, an Appeal to authority and an Argumentum ad nauseam. I had never seen that before. -- Mathieugp 07:05, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you'd like my political opinion, here it is: I agree with the need to support the French language in Quebec, but I don't believe the gestapo tactics of the language police can be justified in a democracy.

Your opinion on the matter is quite irrelevant. I am interested in an Encyclopedia with facts, not your or my opinions. Comparing the actions of the OLF with that of the Gestapo is a False analogy, an almost appeal to fear and an insult to I don't know how many civil servants who peacefully engage in research or compile complaints from customers. -- Mathieugp 07:05, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But my political opinion, and yours, are irrelevant in ultimately considering how the article should be constituted.

Well well, we may be able to agree on something. I fully support this statement. I wrote it myself before I believe. -- Mathieugp 07:05, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In deleting a reference to a valid, minority point-of-view, you are showing a clear bias which harms the objectivity of the article.

Your assertion that your so-called minority POV is valid is not based on facts. Also, your POV is that of the majority of Canada, therefore it is not a minority POV. If your assertion was true, I would be willing to agree that deleting it was not very nice on my part. However, as I am trying very hard to point out, you cannot simply put all kinds of irrational BS inside an encyclopedia article just because similar opinions were printed numerous times in the Montreal Gazette and the other newspapers owned by Globals. -- Mathieugp 07:05, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a medium for reproducing the official justifications of government policy; is it intended as a space to report objectively, and any reporting will show both positive and negative reactions to a given subject.

I agree with the first half. As for showing "positive" and "negative" reactions, it depends what you mean. Were you refering to some polls? I think stating the public opinion might be useful in a number of cases. However, if it is the case, then we really ought to reference the polls and explain what the poll question was. Otherwize, it is very easy for any poll to lead people to wrong conclusions. -- Mathieugp 07:05, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Until an article specifically on opposition is created, I will revert the page to its edited state.

You are of course free to act as a child if you want. Your proposition of an article on Quebec bashing is quite appealing. I am taking note of it. -- Mathieugp 07:05, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you dispute the neutrality of the article, you are free to add a NPOV notice, but I think the article as a whole reflects both sides of the issue well.

I cannot agree here. This article is a meatless skeleton with some falsety bits added to it recently. There is a LOT of work to do. We have to write the History of Quebec French, elaborate on the legal battle engaged by fanatics against the Charter, build a timeline of all these events etc. We are not out of the woods! -- Mathieugp 07:05, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You might consider adding a section which shows the wide support the Charter has among Francophones and the perceived good in forcing immigrants to school their children in French.

Showing that Quebecers are the overwhelming majority to support strong legislative measures to unanglicize their homeland would not realy help people understand what the Charter does, why it is there, why it is opposed and by whom etc. -- Mathieugp 07:05, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Also, the law actually forces all Quebec children to go to the French education system until the age of 16. An exception is made for the children of the English-speaking minority of Quebec. In Ontario, children are also forced to go to school until the age of 16, but since going to French school is not a viable option (there is not even one university), there never really was a need to explicitly direct immigrant children to English schools. Funny how your statement made this reality look sooo bad... -- Mathieugp 07:05, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is unlikely that one of us will convince the other that his point of view is correct, we should be able to have an article that does not dogmatically mirror the views of the Québec government.

I disagree. All points of view are important to get the global picture. Even if it is not very enlightened, your point of view is explainable and must be accounted for. I am convinced that both or POV are correct. -- Mathieugp 07:05, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In quoting popular sources, I was trying to represent opposition to the Charter of the French language, not analyse whether that opposition is valid from a sociolinguistic perspective. Though the Montreal English press and B'nai B'rith aren't authoritative sources on sociology or linguistics, they do reflect the point of view of a prominent minority. Surely you cannot deny that.

I do not know what a "prominent" minority is. I know who the people who have spread these innacuracies are, but I am not certain I would call them "prominent". Maybe pro-status-quo? No, I cannot deny that disinformation is a problem in most Western societies. That is no reason to participate to spreading ignorance even more by writing it inside Encyclopedias. -- Mathieugp 07:05, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Reply to your reply

You wrote :

Also, just to refute some of your points: "Language police" is the commonly accepted term in the English language media throughout Canada, including the non-corporate CBC.

It doesn't change the fact that it is intentionally trying to make it look as tough there was a police force arrresting people who don't speak French. -- Mathieugp 08:02, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That's pretty much exactly what they do. -- 24.202.94.77 00:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think, in that they that enforce provisions of the language law by ensuring things like font compliance (French lettering must be twice as big as non-French) and that all shopkeepers can speak French, the name and its pejorative connotation are deserved.

The whole issue of letter mesuring only exists because the Supreme Court of Canada suggested that it was not legitimate to require French only exterior commercial signs but legitimate to require that French be predominant in the public space. To comply with this, an amendment was passed to the Charter to state that exterior commercial signs had to show a net predominence of French. -- Mathieugp 08:02, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The OLF receives complaints. After they have received complaints from people who expected to be able to be served in French but ended up being told to speak English, they call the shop owner. In the overwhelming majority of cases (which the OLF compiles), the shop owner accepts the assistance the OLF has to offer (translating brochures, menus, interior signs etc) and end up hiring some bilingual youngster (often, an Anglo-Quebecer nowadays). In very rare cases, some shop owners tells them to fuck off. The minute after, Howard Galganov is there to the rescue, to save ye poor old immigrant to defend his right to speak English to Quebecers. Oups, I mean to fend off the evil totalitarian OLF gestapo.
No, in all honesty, you have to be dishonest to refer to the OLF (a bunch of bureaucrats if you want my opinion) as a language police. -- Mathieugp 08:02, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nowhere else in North America does any agency regulate the signage or speech proficiency of non-majority speakers, which is why in Toronto, New York, Los Angeles, Vancouver and myriad other cities you'll find neighbourhoods whose inhabitants cannot speak English and whose shops cater to these inhabitants with large, non-English signs.

We also have immigrants who do not speak neither English nor French. We also have refugees. This reality invalidates your statement completely. -- Mathieugp 08:02, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What they have in Quebec is a humanistic approach to welcoming immigrants. They don't expect them to fight and survive in a capitalist jungle that will inevitably force them to speak English over time. They use their tax money to provide free French classes, free assistance to find employment and support to integrate the society they have chosen to move into. Maybe because Quebecers have suffered massive laissez-faire type assimilated for two centuries themselves, they know that this is not an acceptable way to treat human being. In Quebec, they protect the right to education and the right to work and believe in something called equality of chances. In Quebec, this requires learning French. -- Mathieugp 08:02, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ethnic neighbourhoods in New York, for example, are immediately distinguished from those in Montreal by the presence of prominent signs in languages other than English. In Little Korea, one of the many Chinatowns, Spanish Harlem, West Harlem, to name a few, one can find businesses and community organizations whose operators do not speak the language of the majority.

In Montreal, they have La petite Italie, le Quartier chinois, le Quartier latin and have by far the best ethnic restaurants (because Quebecers have a more european culture I guess). They also have getthos of sort, but because the Quebec government fight social inequalities, the level of integration is quite good. The problem is that the integration is not always done in French because of the competition with English. -- Mathieugp 08:02, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The most recent report of the OQLF _does_ comment on the prevalence of languages other than French in households in Montreal as a problem. Here's a quote:

En ce qui a trait à la langue d'usage de 1991 a 2001, le pourcentage de locuteurs fracophones semble être demeuré stable dans l'ensemble du Québec (83%), alors que celui des locuteurs anglophones a diminué pour passer de 11,2% à 10,5%. Le nombre de personnes qui utilisent le français au foyer est donc plus important que le nombre de personnes de langue maternelle française. Cependant, l'anglais comme langue d'usage continue à faire des gains de l'order de 2 %, alors que ceux du français ne dépassent pas 1,7 %. Ces gains sont d'autant plus préoccupants qu'en 2001, l'anglais est utilisé seul ou avec d'autres langues dans au moins un foyer sur trois dans l'île de Montréal (35,7 %), le français étant pour sa part utilisé dans deux foyers sur trois (66,6%).

(Rapport annuel de gestion 2003-2004, Office québécois de la langue française, p. 13)

This passage makes it very clear that even though it is the native language of less than 10% of the population, English made some gains as a language of use. They say that in the 1991 to 2001 period, English progressed by 2% while French progressed by 1,7%. They say that even more worrisome is the fact that in 2001, English was used alone or with another language in 35.7% of Montreal households. So 35.7% of people are on their way or have already adopted English as their language of use. This means that after 30 years of Bill 101, Quebec is not even remotely close to the mininal 80% of linguistic transfers required to maintain French in the long run. In comparison, globally over 95% of linguistic transfers go to English in the rest of Canada and the US. If Quebec had these figures, there would be no language issue in Quebec. -- Mathieugp 08:02, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would suggest, as an opinion on the Charter of the French language and the point you made about the importance of the "language of promotion," that the Official Languages Act (of Canada) in tandem with the gains made the Charter of the French Language, is moving Canada towards a state in which competence in both languages is to some extent necessary for socioeconomic promotion (particularly in the federal service).

Not true. Quebec was largely bilingual English French in the beginning, before Bill 101. Since then, it has switched to French only in the areas far from Montreal, to French-English in Montreal (with some areas still almost not affected by French at all). The federal laws has prevented the Quebec law from being truly effective.
Requiring competence in French as well as English for federal jobs has changed nothing in Quebec, gave jobs to Franco-Ontarians and made many unilingual Anglophones angry. -- Mathieugp 08:02, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Greater integration of commerce between Quebec and the rest of Canada is, I think, a means of ensuring that bilingualism becomes a prerequisite for citizens who wish to occupy the upper echelons of society.

Since the passing of the Free Trade agreement between Canada and the US, Quebec exports to Ontario have become less and less important while ties with the US have increased. This has been very good for Quebec (and Ontario and Alberta) but has not changed the fact that Quebec has too weak domestic capital and depends on foreign investors too much. -- Mathieugp 08:02, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hopefully, bilingualism will never be a prerequisite in Quebec otherwize we have no chance of saving our language at all. Our ability to adapt to rapic capitalism-driven social changes all the while preserving our national culture will be either destroyed or saved by information technologies. We are hoping for the best. -- Mathieugp 08:02, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Richardvdf abridged response

I'm not attempting to express an argument against the Charter of the French Language, but to represent the opinion of a minority group (within Quebec). The rationality of that opinion is not relevant, as the "fact" here is the fact that the opinion widely exists among non-Francophones.

You should note that my section is much more thoroughly cited than yours.

You should also note the section of Wikipedia on editing conflicts that states that one should not delete what he feels to be bad edits, but modify them. You should also realize that you are not the owner of this article. If you dispute the neutrality, add an NPOV notice.

Mathieugp's comments in response, moved from Richardvdf's talk page

Jumping to conclusions

Your comments on fallacies are irrelevant.

Are they? Maybe I was wrong in thinking fallacies did not belong in Wikipedia. We can ask the community and see what they think. -- Mathieugp 20:20, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am not arguing in favour or against of the Charter of the French langauge, I am merely reporting on opposition to it.

Your section on the opposition to the Charter by the owners of most corporate media in English Canada was worded in such as way that I found it impossible to integrate into the article. That's why I had to take it away. I cannot and am not opposed to mentionning somewhere (most logically in the article on the OLF not in the one on the Charter) that after being fed false information and being presented a distorted picture of Quebec for many years, many members of Quebec society (and observers from outside) whose knowledge of French is none or poor are opposed to the actions of the evil OLF. Personnally, if I was not aware of the other side's point of view, if I thought that the way the OLF was presented was in any way connected to reality, I would also hate that institution. If I were a Canadian patriot, I would hate it even more knowing that it is evil separatists from the evil social-democrat PQ who gave it that mission. No, I do not object to anyone writing this (hopefully in a much less sarcastic and voltarian way! ;-) -- Mathieugp 20:20, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia will soon contain an article on the subject of the fear campain (conducted by Ottawa and its circle of corporate friends) against the Evil Separatist Movement (tm) of Quebec. The whole issue of how the OLF's "actions" were covered in media owned by contributors to the Liberal Party of Canada will fit right in. Will also fit the sponsorship scandal and the 1995 referendum fraud. -- Mathieugp 20:20, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you'll read the style guides for Wikipedia, you'll note that Wikipedia doesn't aim to present essays.

Really, I should be the one explaining that to you! You believe that putting the lies of one side is OK if we also put the lies of the other side. I believe that lies do not belong here and the article must remain objective (even if it means to be a boring article stating just facts and containing zero amount of sensationalism.) -- Mathieugp 20:20, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It aims to present reports, and I am reporting on widespread opposition to the French charter in non-Francophone communities.

And this claim is supported by what? I think you are mixing up "non-Francophones" with "unilingual anglophones and anglicized immigrants who blindly believe in what they read in The Montreal Gazette AND never bothered to have a conversation with an evil sovereigntist". -- Mathieugp 20:20, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To be more specific, so that you'll understand: I am not representing arguments against the French Charter. I am representing opinions held by groups. I have no need to prove that those opinions are rational, simply that they exist, which they obviously do. I could find ten thousand newspaper articles that show Anglo and immigrant discontent with 101.

How many thousands articles? I think you may be exaggerating which is what this fear campain is all about. You can find Anglo-Canadians who hate Bill 101. Fine. I can find half a million Anglo-Quebecers who live in Quebec and after learning a little French discovered nobody hated them. You can find anglicized immigrants who belive in the same lies you believe in. Fine. I can find francized immigrants who believe in the lies we believe in. In the end, what is important is to inform people of the facts and figures behind this silly "my nationalism is better than yours" battle so that they can make up their own mind on the subject (if they do actually care to do so). -- Mathieugp

You, I note, have not found one reference to support your dogmatic rendering of party line bullshit.

What party line bullshit? Can you give me a quote of some sort because I am not following you? How would my supposed "dogmatic rendering of party line bullshit" fit into an article detailing how Quebec uses a legal intrument to prevent the assimilation of its own people? -- Mathieugp 20:20, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Charter of the French Language article is not the place to treat the subject of the political war going on between Canadian nationalists and Quebec nationalists. You should be mature enough to understand this. -- Mathieugp 20:20, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

you have clearly never left Quebec for any appreciable amount of time. I can see by this statement:

Also, the law actually forces all Quebec children to go to the French education system until the age of 16. An exception is made for the children of the English-speaking minority of Quebec. In Ontario, children are also forced to go to school until the age of 16, but since going to French school is not a viable option (there is not even one university), there never really was a need to explicitly direct immigrant children to English schools. Funny how your statement made this reality look sooo bad...

Once again, your conclusion is not backed by a valid argument. My statement doesn't proove what you claim it is prooving. In reality, I lived in Calgary, Alberta for some 4 years. I studied at SAIT where I got something they called a "Computer technology diploma". I learned the English I know while living there. When I moved there, I could have gone to Sainte-Marguerite Bourgeois high school, the sole French language grade 1 to 12 school in area, but since I intended to learn English, I went to St. Francis high school (my father was baptised catholic unlike me, so I was able to get in.) The situation of the French language in Western Canada resembles that of most native American languages. Rapid and irreversible anglicization.-- Mathieugp 20:20, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

that you do not know that, even in unilingual Edmonton, of all cities, children have the option of being educated exclusively in French. In fact, many Anglophone parents send their children to these schools.

You are confused here. There are numerous bilingual schools, indeed used by Anglophone parents to try to teach French as a second language to their children. That doesn't change anything to the facts I have stated before. Of all provinces, Alberta has the highest assimilation rate of its francophone minority. That's too bad, but that how it is. Since the enactment of the Law on Official Languages by Ottawa, the assimilation rate has increased. That is also an undeniable fact. -- Mathieugp 20:20, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You should also note that Edmonton, of all cities, has a University faculty that grants French degrees (Faculte St. Jean).

What university in the world doesn't have a foreign language faculty? -- Mathieugp 20:20, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and this was great: "No, I cannot deny that disinformation is a problem in most Western societies" And you wonder why people think the PQ has totalitarian leanings. Where did you pick that sentiment up? 1984?

Hehe! That's funny. Are you accusing me of being communist or something silly like that? -- Mathieugp 20:20, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, much as I support your attempt to monopolize the truth, I'm going to have ask that the article be protected.

And I am going to watch. -- Mathieugp 20:20, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Richardvdf response

Well, first off I have to say that your responding to individual sentences or small groups of them is aggravating. My sentences are not constructed so as to be self-supporting units of argument; they contain pieces of the argument which contribute to a cohesive whole. In academic discourse, it is customary to respond to an essay with another complete essay that cites the points of the first in the context of an argument, rather than prints the points of the first in sequence and responds to them as though they are each self-supporting thesises.

So, I will respond to your points as though they contribute to a coherent whole, rather than point by point in an attempt to abstract your opinion to meaninglessness.

I would appreciate an atmosphere of respect in our debate. Because we will never, in a thousand lifetimes, reach a semblance of agreement in our political views, I will confine my comments to those pertaining to the article. I will, though, correct your impression of the Faculte St. Jean--it does not offer degrees in French study, but offers degrees in Science and the Arts that are taught in French. And, in those timeless words "you don't know me, you don't know anything about me!" And I don't know you. So let's stop talking about each other's experience and how it validates our arguments and just talk about the arguments themselves.

First off, though, I object to your statement that "that [you] found it impossible to integrate into the article" so that's why you had to take it away. It is not your article. You do not own the article because you contributed to it. You do not have to see how it integrates into the article.

I am going to, again, explain that I do not seek to prove or disprove the rationality of the opposition to the Charter of the French Language. I merely wish to report on its existence, as shown by reporting in multiple, unconnected sources: an alternative newspaper (owned by Quebecor, I believe), an English language daily, and a Jewish rights advocacy group. I will research sources in academia to better show my point.

I assert, for the thousandth time, that I do not intend to report the "fact" that the Charter of the French Language is "evil". That is clearly not a "fact".

I intend to report the fact that many in minority communities have complained that the Charter of the French Language is "evil," for whatever reasons. If you believe you can attribute this "misperception" to a systematic campaign by the federal liberal party and the right-wing media, I invite you to amend the article with comments to that effect. Please be sure to source them.

To make my point clear, I'll give an example. Say the article in question described the theory of evolution. You have written it. I come along and write a statement that says "there are significant numbers of extremely religious people who reject this theory and its teaching." The sentence doesn't report on whether rejecting evolution is silly or not, it reports on the fact that some people reject it. If you'll look at the article on evolution, you'll see it has a small section near the end that acknowledges the "opposition".

Now, on a personal note, I don't mind talking to "evil separatists." It is important, I think, to have one's political views vigorously challenged so that he can, through reflection, develop them so that are as well formed as possible. I live in Sherbrooke. If you'd like, we can sit down for coffee sometime here or in Montreal and have the political debate that's been sidetracking the debate on the article. No promises that we'll break our discord, but at least we might understand each other better.

(Richardvdf 21:33, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC))

Another Insightful Opinion

I did not have time to read your whole dispute, but I think I can try to be quite a neutral mediator. For the record, I'm a francophone law student living in Montreal and I believe in freedom of expression. The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information, not personal opinions.

This is most excellent, as it is exactly my point of view. If you had taken the time to read what I have written, you would have stubbled upon this sentime which I wrote to Richardvdf:
"Your opinion on the matter is quite irrelevant. I am interested in an Encyclopedia with facts, not your or my opinions. " -- Mathieugp 02:53, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That is why a neutral point of view has to indicate its source if it presents opinions or controversial facts. I did not support Richardvdf's first edit because it presented alleged facts without any source. However, he has made substantial efforts in his later edits to provide a more balanced point of view of the opposition, and I find his contribution pretty useful.

I also saw the modification of Richardvdf and have also noticed he added in where he had taken his opinions (not that I didn't know, but since these are not his own reflexions, it is important that they be attributed to the right authors.) However, I cannot agree with your assertion that "he has made substantial efforts in his later edits to provide a more balanced point of view of the opposition" since a quick look at the history of the Opposition section will reveal to anyone bothering to read it that he has done nothing other than correcting his own spelling mistakes and adding the sources which he read. And that is a fact. -- Mathieugp 02:53, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For Matieugp, we know that you think this law is a good thing and that your opinion is shared among a lot of people in Quebec, but you have to accept the fact that it is not the only existing opinion.

This sentence implies that I do not know or agree with the fact that there are other existing opinions. This is innacurate. Again, quoting myself from this very page, I have stated "All points of view are important to get the global picture." But even better, in the Wikipedia:Requests for page protection page, I have clarified the whole thing in these words:
"As I have stated in the talk page and contrary to Richardvf's claim, I do not object to an entry stating that opposition to the Charter exists. This subject will inevitable have to be covered in full, as will many other subjects related to the Charter and the precariousness of Quebec French. I objected to the paragraph he entered because it contains a logical fallacy in almost every sentence. I have attempted to make it clear that I removed it because I couldn't find a way to integrate this entry into the article. I have later stated that I thought that if really "it" had to be in, it would have to be fixed so as to be a lot less biased and logically be inserted inside Office québécois de la langue française and not Charter of the French Language. In fact, there is already the beginning of something related to that subject in the OLF article."

Neutrality is not ignoring opposing viewpoints or calling them "logical fallacies".

I certainly hope I never stated something that bad before, because in doing so, I would have committed more than a logical fallacy, I would have given the wrong definition to the word "neutrality". I do make mistakes quite often, but I tend to avoid making important ones by expression my thoughts solely on subjects which I master fully. -- Mathieugp 02:53, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The most obvious logical fallacy on this page is you pretending that your opinion is so good that is does not have to suffer critiques.

I am very sorry if you got that impression after reading me. I can certainly agree that the "tone" of my refutation is that of an irritated man who lost much his patience, but I assure you, I would be open to receive any valid argument at anytime.
Also, can you give me the name of the fallacy which I committed? I would like to know. Can you give me a quote validating your assertion that I pretend that my opinion is so good that is does not have to suffer critiques? A better question, what is my opinion on the whole issue? I have just re-read myself in full on this page, and I believe that my opinion on the Charter was not made explicit a single time. Also, if you find my personnal opinion on the actual Charter of the French Language article, please let me know so I can remove it because it doesn't belong there. -- Mathieugp 02:53, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The better argument will always succeed even with serious opposition; this principle is called "the marketplace of ideas".

I also believe that the truth can be put under the light when all are given a chance to present their view, however there is more than enough empirical evidence to invalidate your asserting that "the better argument will always succeed even with serious opposition". How many innocents are in jail? -- Mathieugp 02:53, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You're doing a good job of adding information about Quebec on Wikipedia (despite some legal confusion - e.g. government = executive power, it doesn't pass laws!), but keep in mind that others have the right to disagree with you and state it in an article if it respects the rules of this encyclopaedia. Hope this will clear up things a little. --Franz1984

Thank you for your encouragement on my "work" inside Wikipedia. I do know that the Parliament passes the law and not the government. I assume you read something from me (probably and unclear sentence) which explain your parenthesis, but I cannot recall. I would be curious to know what made you think I mixed up these two separate institutions.
Finally, if people want to disagree with me and "state it in an article" as you say, they better do it in my talk page because I have a hell of a hard time imagining where else it could fit in a serious encyclopedia. -- Mathieugp 02:53, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I generally agree with the unsigned comments above. The section on the opposition to the Charter does deserve to be in the article. Anyone who thinks it is NPOV should edit it, not delete it. I for one see some POV problems with the section, but let's correct them. HistoryBA 19:15, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Final clarification

HistoryBA, if you have the time and patience to fix this, you have my blessing. I am reasonable enough to admit that I should have calmed my nerves down and taken the time to analyse and disect the paragraph, but at the time I read it, I did not have the energy for it. I should have edited the paragraph rather than removing it out of passion and start a whole useless dispute in this page.

It is a difficult excercise to "repair" a paragraph which is so full of BS. I am in the process of writing a full article on the ugly political and legal dispute around Bill 101. This article I hope will help to explain the existence of so much nonsense on the subject in the press. However, it will be quite tricky to write as it is very charged politically.

To help the person who will fix the paragraph, here is what I noted to be wrong with it using the Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial as a reference:

1. It contains non-neutral language and weasel terms such as "language police", "enforcers of the Charter", "extraordinary power to censure" and "totalitarian mindset in the bureaucracy".

2. It tries to insinuate ...

A) that the OLF actions are directed against the Jews (ignoring the fact that some Jews are French-speaking) and thereby antisemitic in nature.

B) that the OLF has bullied and harassed members of ethnic minorities (with what? letters?).

C) that the opinions corroborated by Don Macpherson and Kristian Gravenor in their articles are shared by all non-francophones and especially minority ethnic groups.

3. It uses a severy biased attribution in distorting the opinions of Brent Tyler, president of the Alliance Quebec pressure group, to make it look as though they were the opinion of the Jewish community and that of most "ethnics" in Quebec.

4. It corroborates extreme accusations for which no proofs are given in...

A) stating that "The enforcers of the Charter [...] hold extraordinary power to censure minority-speakers who are not in compliance with the Charter." yet not presenting any fact to support this claim. Reading the actual law will reveal to anyone that the OLF, having no police power, cannot go further than fining people who choose to ignore the law.

B) stating that "The alleged abuse of this power has led to charges of racism and harassment being levelled against the OQLF by members of minority groups." yet not providing a way to read the charges. Reading the source reveals that this is again the opinion of Brent Tyler.

C) stating "The report contained sections describing the continued prevalance of languages other than English in one-third of Montreal's households as "alarming" " yet reading the source reveals that the OLF reports as alarming the faster progression of English (2%) versus French (1.7%) in allophone households in Montreal.

Have fun! :-) -- Mathieugp 02:53, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree that "language police" is inappropriate and betrays a particular POV. It is appropriate, however -- and I am sure you would agree with me on this -- to point out that critics have used this term. This applies as well to most of your other points. The question here is the widespread critique of the Charter in the English community, whether well-founded or not. I have tried to remove some of the clear cases of POV in the paragraph. If you see more, would you edit it? Also, would you consider writing up another paragraph that would begin with "Supporters of the Charter have responded that ..."? HistoryBA 20:03, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Need to cover all main dispositions

The section on the dispositions is a mess. We need to state what the law does, how it does it, and the actual result.

  • Sole official language of Quebec
  • Fundamental language rights
  • Language of the legislature and the courts
  • Language of civil administration
  • Language of semipublic agencies
  • Language of labour relations
  • Language of commerce and business
  • Language of instructions

-- Mathieugp 8 July 2005 06:40 (UTC)

Bill 63

It was bill 63 or Act to promote the French language in Quebec the Union nationale passed on November 1969. This act didn't contain anything of substance to promote the adoption of French by immigrants, leaving the door to English public schools wide open. This topic would be more in its place in History of Quebec French. A specific Act to promote the French language in Quebec article could also be created.

I found a great paper entitled The impact of language policies on enrollment in public schools in Québec on the Website of the OQLF : http://www.cslf.gouv.qc.ca/publications/PubC141/C141P2-1.html

-- Mathieugp 14:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Equality Party complaint

Unless somebody can present some details (whether the complaint was actually offially filed and/or accepted, and what the UN's reaction was), I would suggest to remove that reference. The party existed only for a couple of years, never had any significant support, and this whole issue just scream out "PR Coup" to me... --Frescard 04:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

--Soulscanner 08:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)== POV ==

The article was reverted to a past version following the partisan and innacurate edits of User:SoulScanner. A POV tag was added to the Oppostion section. This section has always been in violation of Wikipedia's fundamental principle of Neutral point of view. It uses non neutral language (weasel words), uses an unencyclopedic accusatory tone etc. See Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial. -- Mathieugp 20:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is politicly motivated and not at all neutral.

Edits were not POV. Sweeping genralizaion expressed by Mathieugp do not address the points raised in soulscanner's comments. Revert merely reinstated politically motivated POV of original article without justifying them or providing references.
Detailed justification:
"Defining the linguistic rights of all Quebecers" - this is misleading; the purpose of the law was to protect French and the rights of francophones; it in fact narrowed the rights of many Quebecers, francophohnes, anglophones and immigrants alike
Fact 1: The 5 linguistics rights defined by the Charter are the rights of all persons. In law, a person is any human being. -- Mathieugp 18:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The phrasing you used implied that all Quebecers want this right. Anglophones do not want it for themselves, neither do most native peoples, and most allophones do not feel a need for it. It's pretty obvious that the law was not put there for the sake of anglophones. It is just the political reality that the law was enacted to protect the right of francophones to live in French. You can find many references for this. --Soulscanner 23:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
1) No, the phrasing I am using does not imply all Quebecers "want" this right. All it implies, logically, is that these linguistics rights are, by law, those of all persons in Quebec. Because they are individual rights, people are free to exercise them or not. Just like the right to vote. Some people do prevail themselves of their right to vote, while other do not (whatever their motives maybe). Likewize, some people, in a situation where they are consumers, prevail themselves of their right to be informed and served in French in Quebec. 2) If these rights were "for francophones" or "for anglophones" or else, it would be a blatant case of discrimination and therefore go against the principles of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. 3) What a right implies, whatever the scenario maybe, is that a person's right is being violated when this person is being prevented from exercising it. 4) Contrary to what you are stating, many anglophones and allophones do prevail themselves of their rights to use French in the public space. I personally know many myself, and if you think about it yourself you will realize that a lot of people around you are doing it all the time. 5) It is self-evident that the legislator expected that the linguistic majority (yes, the francophones) of Quebec would prevail themselves of those rights. It would have been pretty pointless otherwize. 6) The Charter of the French Language is not enforced inside Indian Reserves. 7) These rights say nothing about the use of language at home or in the park between friends or whatever, because that is a fundamental question of individual freedom and even privacy, two things also protected by Quebec laws. The personal rights included in the Charter of the French Language are only concerned with the situations where all citizens, speaking various languages, may come in contact in the public space. 8) In Ontario for example, where the language of the majority could not seriously be contested in the public space, even less so threatened by any minority language, the chartering of basic rights of all Ontarians to speak English with their governement, their bosses and the cashiers at Zellers would be received with a huge laugh. As would be chartering of any other right that is not being openly violated. -- Mathieugp 03:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
"framework law" - there is nothing in Quebec or Caandian law that defines "framework" laws; unless this term is defined and referenced, it is largely meaningless and a "weasel word"
Fact 2: Framework law is English for loi-cadre as will show the Grande dictionnaire terminologique and many legal terminology books. In addition, entering the expression "Framework law" in google.ca returns 163 000 results. -- Mathieugp 18:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Where in the Charter does it say that it is a loi-cadre? You need a reference that refers to the Charter itself, in English, as a framework law. Otherwise it is only your interpretation. --Soulscanner 23:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually no. With all due respect, you are not an authority. You will have to accept that you did not know what a "framework law" was before today and grow up. "Framework law", "Legal framework", sometimes general law, skeleton law, outline law are all pretty much synonyms for laws the define the basics, the framework and leave it to the executive to pass the regulations dealing with the details of how it is going to be applied. This is a very basic notion of civil law in Quebec, possibly of common law as well. -- Mathieugp 03:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
"quasi-constitutional" - this law is not constitutional - it can be repealed by the National Assembly at any time by a simple vote, just like any other law; "quasi-consitutional" is a politically biased word that seeks to present a political view of the law as "untouchable" as a legal one.
Fact 3: The expression "quasi-constitutional" (44 100 results in google.ca) refers to law that are elevated to Statute laws. This would apply to both Quebec charters, the 1975 Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and the 1977 Charter of the French Language as well as other laws. -- Mathieugp 18:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
False. Any written Legislation passed by a legislative body is a statute. For example, the law requiring to color margerine is a statute because it was passed by the National Assembly. I suppose the Charter is a framework law because it contains many statutes. But there are many such laws that contain many statutes. --Soulscanner 23:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I guess I did not communicate my thoughts clearly here. Maybe it is not "Statute law" in English. What I know is that in Quebec, because some laws can go up or down the ladder in the Civil Code, a distinction is sometimes drawn between a a simple law that has just been passed and one that has been purposely designed, or possibly amended multiple times, to supercede other laws within the code. I am not certain, but I believe the concept is not unique to civil law. In any case, the fact that they express fundamental values and are intended to supercede other laws is the reason they are called quasi-constitutional. Maybe "Statute law" is not quite the right term for that? -- Mathieugp 03:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
"fundamental law ... " - untrue - the law is no more fundamental than any other Quebec law; many Quebec laws form part of Quebec's statutes ... this is an example of Quebec nationalist bias ... the law is preceived by many as politically untouchable becauae, as stated in my revision, it is an expression of Quebecois (i.e. French-Quebecer's) identity; it's being fundamental is a political perception by supporters of the law; .
Although the law is not technically "quasi-constitutional" (no such thing exists as far as I know), we also have to remember that what we call the Constitution of Canada is "an amalgam of codified acts and uncodified traditions and conventions", many of which were not constitutional in intent when they were written (e.g. the Salisbury Convention). You say "it's being fundamental is a political perception by supporters of the law"; considering that all major parties in Québec are strong supporters of the law, that said supporters comprise an overwhelming majority of the population (can't find a source for this, my guess is that it is so obvious that no newspapers bothered polling in the last 15 years, but a source would be welcome), that the law is widely considered as being fundamental, and that there is no technical way for the National Assembly to assert this as its intent (Québec not having a constitution), I would argue that it is fundamental, and that given a conflict between bill 101 and some other newly passed law, the Supreme Court would certainly weight these facts when making a decision. IANAL, so I would like someone else to write it down in the article (I won't revert, the original wasn't very clear), but I think passing it down as "just a law" is also POV. UnHoly 06:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Nothing is stopping Quebec from writing its own constitution, so your assertion is false. Lots of U.S. states have constitutons, and there is nothing in the Canadian constitution stopping Quebec from writing its own, so it's false to say that Quebecers have no way of giving this constitutional wieght on the provinicial level; the fact is that English-epaking Quebecers would object to putting the Charter as it is in a document like that. As it stands, making it constitutional would require a Constitutional amendment in Parliament similar to the one that made New Brunswick officially bilingual. So you are wrong, it is just a law like any other that can be eliminated by a simple majority in the National Assembly. Under the Canadian constitution, which balances the principle of federalism, democracy, minority rights, and indiviudal rights [1]. So the principle of federalism and democracy give Quebec jurisdiction over the Charter; so legally, it is a law like any other. As I said in my previous it, what makes it more than a law is that it is an expression and affirmation of cultural identitity for Quebec francophones, so it's funadamental to their identity. For Quebec anglophones, it is largely viewed as a slap in the face that excludes them from meaningful participation in civic life, so that is tolerated as the price of living in Quebec (like icestorms and traffic jams on the Champlain Bridge)). But those are political perceptions based on cultural dispositions, not legal designations based on fundamental legal principles.--Soulscanner 08:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I am not saying that there could not be a written constitution, I am just saying that there is none right now. We live in a common law regime in which that constitution is more than just what is written down. Of course in theory it could eliminated by a simple majority in the National Assembly, just like the amendment that made NB officially bilingual was voted by a simple majority; still, you cannot deny that these laws are more fundamental than the color of margarine, for example. UnHoly 09:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
The analogy between the NB law and the Quebec one is false. A simple majority in NB's Assembly cannot reverse bilingualism in that province. NB Bilingualism is enshrined in the Canadian constitution and requires a constitutional amendment to change. The analogy to that would be the amendment that enshrined linguistic school boards in Quebec in the 1990's. Reversing these would require a constitutional amendment. Bill 101 can be reversed by a simple majority vote in the National Assembly. In that sense it is a simple law like any other (like the color of margerine). What makes it different or fundamental to French-speaking Quebecers is that it was brought in at a time when French Quebecers were asserting their political hegemony in Quebec, and as a consequence it is presented to them as the ultimate political expression of their ethnic and/or cultural identity; this view is simply not allowed to be questioned in French Quebec, so it may certainly seem like what is largely a political perception and point of view is perceived as a penultimate truth . --Soulscanner 06:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Fact 4: Statutes are the fundamental laws of all provinces. There is nothing unusual here of POV here. Just read the article about the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms to learn in which way it differs from a regular law. Many more articles going through this in depth could probably be found online. -- Mathieugp 18:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


"language of majority" ... this is a politicized turn of phrase that is used to justify even the parts of the law that were struck down by the Supreme Court; it is also a poor translation from the French and awkward in English; it would be neutral to mention that most Quebecers are French-speaking
Please explain how French is not the language of the majority? Fact 5: French is the mother tongue of a large majority, the home language of an even greater majority, and it is also the most understood language in Quebec. The fact that it was the language of the majority is one of the fundamental reasons invoked to explain why French became the official language of Quebec. -- Mathieugp 18:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
It's just not the way it is expressed in standard, plain English; this expression usually translated from the French in the context of a linguistic dispute, when nationalists attempt to justify the law. As such, it is better to find a more neutral way of expressing this.
That is interesting. Why would nationalists, or anyone, be in need to justify a law protecting language rights? Do I need to remind that language rights are human rights? Please tell me that before you coming here to insert your anti-Quebec POV you have read (or at least heard of) the Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights? -- Mathieugp 03:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
"thoroughly bilingual at the institutional level" - this is a weasel word that means nothing; Quebec was officially bilingual before Bill 22; it abolished English as an official language, which is why it is controversial; this is an important fact to mention becaase it explains why the law remains controversial; this is not accusatory ... the fact that the original article ignores this central fact makes it POV; if you are uncomfortable with the word abolished, I'll leave it out
Please explain where are the weasel words. That the Charter contributed to unanglicized the public life in Quebec is clear. And if it could not have unanglicize anything if it had not bean for the fact that Quebec was largely anglicized before. At the level of all its main public institution, the Quebec state carried its activities in English and French to various degree depending on the cases. French was often a translation language in official documents, although this had already been greatly improved thoughout the 1960-1977 period, that is before the Charter was adopted. That is what "thoroughly bilingual at the institutional level" means. It could be rephrased and expanded to make the situation that prevailed before the series of action that saw the redress of the status of French in Quebec. -- Mathieugp 18:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
"Officially bilingual" is a much shorter and more common way of saying "thoroughly bilingual at an institutional level"; the law abolished English as an official language; deanglicized is an awkward word; --Soulscanner 23:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
But neither English nor French was, in law, the official language of Quebec. Much like in the US where there is no official language (federal) but all kinds of things that make English the de facto language of that State. -- Mathieugp 03:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
"National Assembly has to consider historic and constitutional rights ... " ... It was the Parti Quebecois government, and not the National Assembly, that drafted the law, and had to consider these ... the National Assemply ratified the law; it did not draft it. --Soulscanner 02:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Most likely cabinet member Camille Laurin could be considered to have drafted the Charter, but I am not sure of this although I read it multiple times. The draft of the Charter actually is the 1974 Official Language Act. A comparison between the two makes it clear the the Charter did not come out of the bulue The members of the National Assembly participated to the drafing, and the amending of the Charter as well. To know which ones, we can check the journal of the National Assembly. Regarding the phrase "National Assembly has to consider historic and constitutional rights", I don't understand what is the nature of the objection or comment or whatever. Can you please explain? -- Mathieugp 18:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The National Assembly does not draft laws. The Premier appoints committee memebers and chairs to do so. It is they who consider rights and precedents. The Natioanl Assembly only enacts or passes laws and motions. The usee of overuse of National Assembly is used to imply and emphasized that the law is based on a political and democratic consensus that does not exist, and to cameoflage the considerable controversy about certain statutes within the law. --Soulscanner 23:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reminding me of something I didn't know: that in the flawed political system that the British government imposed on us, the executive controls the legislative and makes a mockery of all principles of separation of powers. Nevertheless, in the facts, the draft committees are committees made up of MNAs. -- Mathieugp 03:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Poorly argumented piece of Quebec bashing

The following edit by User:Tkondaks is a poorly argumented piece of Quebec bashing:

On November 14, 1988 the political and human rights watchdog organization Freedom House published “The Doctrine of ‘Preponderance of Blood’ in South Africa, the Soviet Union and Quebec”in its journal Exchange. Introduced by Zbigniew Brzezinski, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter’s National Security advisor, the essay compared the language of instruction provisions of Bill 101 with South African apartheid statutes and jurisprudence. The statutes of both Quebec and the now-defunct South Africa apartheid system employ the “doctrine of preponderance of blood“ which is the assigning of classifications to individuals based upon who one’s parents are, what the parents’ classification is, and the handing down of this classification from one generation to the next, in perpetuity.

The premise here is wrong. First, attendance to school is compulsory for all children from age 6 to 16, regardless of any criteria of origin or mother tongue. The only criteria here is citizenship and residence for the parents. A main system, where French is the language of instruction, is available for all parents to send their children to. English as a second language is taught in these schools. A second system, which in most States simply does not exist, where the language of instruction is English, is, in addition to the first, available for parents who are 1) citizens of Canada and 2) received their instructions in English in Canada, to send their children to. French as a second language is taught is these schools. There is no "blood" or even ethnic criteria here. Quebec laws meet and even go beyond the constitutional requirements of the "Minority Language Education Rights" in Section Twenty-three of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:


Quebec passed its language law in 1977, before the Canadian charter was introduced in 1982.

Following Tony Kondaks's reasoning, all Canadian provinces that respect the constitution of Canada follow a “doctrine of preponderance of blood“ since they set two classes of civil rights based on an ethnic criteria, here first language learned and still understood. I am saying "following Tony Kondaks's reasoning" because according to most people's reasoning, an ethnic criteria such as native language has nothing to do with the “doctrine of preponderance of blood“ of course.

The conclusion: the Quebec Charter's language of instruction provisions produce de facto segregation of civil rights. The basic premise of equality under the law in free and democratic societies is violated by the creation of two separate civil rights categories: those individuals that can freely choose to send their children to either French or English publicly funded schools and those that are forced to send their children only to French publicly funded schools.

Indeed, all parents, except those who received their instructions in English in Canada are not free to send their children to schools that were not intended for them. In most other countries in the world, parents do not even have the choice at all, thereby violating the imaginary individual right of parents to send their children to schools where the language of instruction is not that of the host society. Maybe Tony Kondaks should start a worldwide campaign to invite Canada, and all States in the world, whether sovereign or federated in a union, to stop preventing the natural emergence of segregation in each human society. Why minority education right only for French and English? That is clearly discrimination. It almost looks as though we are trying to set language as some sort of a collective right. What a joke! Only linguists, ethnologists, jurists, judges, lawyers, human right experts could think of something so ridiculous and against my right to do whatever the hell I want as an individual! Johnny can send his children to English or French schools. But Jacques, Zaid, Jiyao and Napu can only send theirs to French schools! But what about Zaid's right to Arab schools!! and Jyiao's right to Mandarin school!! and Napu's right to Hindi school! Are we supposed to all live the in same city and actually foster communication among us?! Common! People have the right to ignore their neighbour!

While we are at it, we should also fix the problem of the discrimination for voting during elections which sets people under 18 on one side and people over 18 and the other. There are so many discriminations!

But enough reduction to the absurd, if Tony Kondaks is honestly concerned about ending systems of racial discrimination, why doesn't he write to denounce the disgusting system of racial discrimination which the Indian reserves of Canada are? That is clearly a system, in its colonial aspects as well as its segregationist aspects, comparable to the Apartheid. Isn't it obvious that these human beings' rights have been and continue to be completely ignored by all? Isn't it the priority in the defence of human rights and the redress of past and present injustices? Why this focus on Quebec, using such flawed arguments and without any respect for the intelligence of the readers?

In any case, since the premise is not true, we can assert that there is no logical connection between “doctrine of preponderance of blood“ and Quebec laws to be found in Tony Kondaks' arguments. -- Mathieugp 01:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, a far better argument than anything I could have said myself. I find myself reconvinced once again. UnHoly 07:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Read the response of the Quebec Government to the Freedom House link and the response to the Quebec Government response and you'll see that all of Mathieugp's points are addressed, particularly his point about Indian Reserves which are, according to him (above), "clearly a system...comparable to the Apartheid." This is precisely the point: Canada's Indian Act IS a race law and that is precisely why the Indian Act is explicitly exempted from application of the Canadian Human Rights Act because if it wasn't exempted, it would be found to be in violation of its equality provisions. Had Mathieugp bothered to read all of the linked material within the Freedom House link, he would have seen that.

Possible POV in Opposition section

I've taken just a quick look at the article and found a line in the Opposition section that is illogical and, I believe, not based in fact. The line is "Since many anglophones who didn't want their children learning French have left, several English-language schools in Montreal haved [sic] closed their doors after the introduction of the Charter in the 1970s."

I lived on the island of Montreal for 45 years, from my birth to four years ago. Beginning in grade 1 in the early 60s, there were French classes twice a week. (This is just my own personal experience...I am sure French-language instruction in English school boards did not begin the same year I began Grade 1!) If memory serves me, there was a television class one day (starring Anne Slack) and the next class of the week was held without the televised lesson. French classes were a compulsory part of my primary and secondary education in the (English) Protestant School Board. It is my understanding that the case was similar in the English Catholic system. Therefore, any parent who wanted to prevent their child from attending French class would have moved from the province long before the Charter became law.

One of the purposes of the authors of the Charter was to restrict access to English language schools, so once the restrictions on freedom of choice became law, enrolement in the English schools dropped. I don't have statistics to back this up but it seems to me that the English schools didn't simply close, they were turned over to the French sector to accomodate the increased influx of allophones and anglophones that were no longer qualified to enter the English system.

While not widespread, during this time of funneling communities formerly eligible to enter the English system into the French system, there was even a group of parents of children attending French-language schools that were calling for separate French-language schools for the allophones and the francophones.

My impression of why anglophones (and people, in general) have been leaving Quebec for the past 30 years is that they have felt a growing resentment of their presence, a lack of political representation, a reduction of professional and/or economic opportunities, and a dislike for the political instability brought on by the seemingly never-ending obsession with language and independence at the cost of all other issues. CWPappas 07:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

CWPappas, well said. You know, there is still plenty of premium office space available in Montreal due to the mass exodus of english corporation headquarters during the referendum. Also, personally I find the PQ to by ethnophobic (see previous leaders comments such as the famous "ethnic vote cost us the referendum", anglophobic, xenophonic, isolationist and generally in a fog of cognitive dissonance. 74.56.218.173 19:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's been about seven weeks since I posted the above comment and there has been but one response so I have changed "Since many anglophones who didn't want their children learning French have left, several English-language schools in Montreal haved closed their doors after the introduction of the Charter in the 1970s." to "Because many anglophones relocated outside of the province, several English-language schools in Montreal closed their doors after the introduction of the Charter in the 1970s." CWPappas 08:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

"C'est normal: Lévesque urged anglos to give bill a chance" (L. IAN MACDONALD, Montreal Gazette)

The following ideas deserve a place in the article. I will add them soon.Toddsschneider 12:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/columnists/story.html?id=d45f7608-8867-426b-aa15-438ffe5cf18b

"Thirty years ago tomorrow, when the Charter of the French language was adopted by the National Assembly, Réne Lévesque implored Quebec's anglophone and allophone minorities to give Bill 101 "a chance."

"Lévesque himself was never very comfortable with the interdictions and coercive nature of his government's language law. He found it 'humiliating,' although he also found it 'normal,' a favourite word of his that found its way into the preamble of the legislation, which stated that French was 'the normal and everyday language of work, instruction, communication, commerce and business.'

"All this would be achieved, the preamble affirmed, 'in a spirit of fairness and open-mindedness, respectful of the institutions of the English-speaking community in Quebec and respectful of the ethnic minorities whose valuable contributions it readily acknowledges.'

"Both statements are pure Réne Lévesque. He was always conflicted in one way or another. Although Bill 101 occurred on his watch as premier, he was quite happy that Camille Laurin was known as its father. For himself, Lévesque always claimed that his proudest achievement was Bill 2, the campaign finance reform that to this day serves as a model of transparency in Canadian politics."

This is a common misconception about Lévesque which I have seen being retaken multiple times by English language media. Lévesque is quoted out of context here. In the same speech, he said that a majority having to give itself a charter to protect their language was the ultimate sign of colonialism if there ever needed one. What he found humiliating was for a people to put into law what should be happening normally like in Ontario. It is hard to imagine that Ontarians should need to write, in a complex piece of legislation, that English is the "normal and everyday language of work, instruction, communication, commerce and business." of that province. Not a single person argues against this in any of the 9 English provinces. In Quebec, a minority inside the minority wishes for English to play that role in Quebec, even though the human consequences are of course going to be disastrous for the great majority in Quebec. It is true though that Lévesque's proudest achievement was the law which says "one citizen one vote, not one dollar one vote". Lévesque also hoped, like many, that the Charter was going to be temporary, i.e., that after achieving sovereignty, French would become the official language in the constitution of our country, that the position of French would be redressed and the law would therefore become obsolete and useless over a short period of time.
It is simply wrong to say that minority-rights advocates wish that English in Quebec should become the "normal and everyday language of work, instruction, communication, commerce and business". No respectable minority rights-advocates there wish such a development; they would be a minority inside a minority, inside a majority.
Furthermore, honestly speaking, even at the time of Bill 101, French was the "normal" language for the majority of Quebecers, as the Gendron Commission report pointed out. English was not, and is not, in any position to be imposed on the population.
Also, you are wrong to say there are "9 English provinces". According to Wikipedia, officially speaking, there are 7 English provinces, 2 bilingual ones, and 1 French one.
I doubt very much that in a "sovereign" Quebec, the status of English would not be as highly regulated as it is now. But that is conjecture, and has little place in an encyclopedia.Toddsschneider 19:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Respectable minority-rights advocates understand that English speakers are not a linguistic minority in Canada. That the provincial minority of English-speakers is relative and that no matter how much daily propaganda may state otherwise, there will not be an English-speaking minority of Quebec for as long as Quebec is a province of a federal Canada refusing the territoriality principle.
The anglophones are a minority in Quebec, which is why the writers of Bill 101 addressed legislation on that very subject to "protect" the majority:
Whereas the National Assembly (sic) intends to pursue this objective (i.e., francization) in a spirit of fairness and open-mindedness, respectful of the institutions of the English-speaking community of Québec, and respectful of the ethnic minorities, whose valuable contribution to the development of Québec it readily acknowledges ... [2]
Notice that it does not say "the English-speaking community of Canada". Undoubtedly the drafters considered the latter wording, and did not use it. They spoke of fellow Quebecers. Which is why the intended to restrict English-language education rights to anglo-Quebecers alone. It didn't work out that way.
And for the readers outside Quebec, please define the "territoriality principle" you mention above.Toddsschneider 15:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
You'll remember the chronology of events: 1976, election of a majority of PQ MNAs, 1977, adoption of the Charter of the French language, 1980, referendum on sovereignty-association. But the population of Quebec never gave René Lévesque the mandate to negotiate a new constitutional arrangement, so Anglophones never became a linguistic minority in an independent Quebec. They remained part of the linguistic majority of Canada, which is a minority in one out of 10 of its provinces. The Charter of the French language was subsequently amputated by non-elected judges appointed in a partisan manner by the federal Executive in Ottawa, something impossible in most liberal "representative democracies".
The territoriality principle is explained in non-scientific terms in the first paragraphs of Charles Castonguay, Getting the facts straight on French : Reflections following the 1996 Census, in Inroads Journal, volume 8, 1999, pages 57 to 77 -- Mathieugp 01:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The Gendron Commission (I wrote the article by the way) made clear that French was useful only to Francophones and that in situations of communications between Francophones and Non-Francophones, French was of no use. The full quotes are:
Il ressort que si le français n'est pas en voie de disparition chez les francophones, ce n'est pas non plus la langue prédominante sur le marché du travail québécois. Le français n'apparaît utile qu'aux francophones. Au Québec même, c'est somme toute une langue marginale, puisque les non-francophones en ont fort peu besoin, et que bon nombre de francophones, dans les tâches importantes, utilisent autant, et parfois plus l'anglais que leur langue maternelle. Et cela, bien que les francophones, au Québec, soient fortement majoritaires, tant dans la main-d'œuvre que dans la population totale.
My translation: "It comes out (of our inquiry) that if French is not in the process of disappearing among francophones, neither is it the prevalent language in the Quebec labour market. French appears useful only for French-speaking people. Even inside Quebec, it is altogether a marginal language, since non-francophones need it very little, and that a considerable number of francophones, in important tasks, use as much and sometimes more English than their mother tongue. And that, in spite of the fact that francophones, in Quebec, are a strong majority, in labour as well as in the total population."Toddsschneider 21:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Les immigrants sont arrivés au Québec pour améliorer leur situation matérielle et pour assurer un meilleur avenir à leurs enfants. Ils ont été obligés de travailler en anglais pour vivre et ils ont vu les Canadiens français leur donner l'exemple. Ils ont constaté qu'à Montréal du moins, une partie des parents canadiens-français envoyaient leurs enfants aux écoles anglaises et aux écoles privées, chaque fois que leurs moyens leur permettaient de le faire. Ils ont donc suivi la même voie. Leur bilinguisme leur paraissait absolument nécessaire, et ils n'ont jamais cessé de réclamer des écoles bilingues neutres, afin que leurs enfants reçoivent la meilleure formation possible.
My translation: "The immigrants arrived in Quebec to improve their material condition and to insure a better future for their children. They were obliged to work in English to live and they saw French Canadians give them the example. They observed that in Montreal at least, a part of the French-Canadian parents were sending their children to English schools and private schools, each time they had the financial means to do it. They therefore followed the same path. Their bilingualism seemed absolutely necessary to them, and they never stopped demanding neutral bilingual schools, so that their children could get the best possible training."Toddsschneider 21:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
The main recommandation was:
Nous recommandons que le gouvernement du Québec se donne comme objectif général de faire du français la langue commune des Québécois, c'est-à-dire une langue qui, étant connue de tous, puisse servir d'instrument de communication dans les situations de contact entre francophones et non francophones.
My translation: "We recommend that the government of Quebec gives itself the general objective to make French the common language of Quebecers, that is to say, a language which, being known to everyone, could be used as a communication tool in contact situations between francophones and non-francophones."Toddsschneider 21:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
English is being imposed to the population of Quebec as a language of work, which is the original weakness never properly addressed by the Charter. Even though I was born after 1977, I did not learn English only because I thought it was a fun an exotic language to learn. I was brainwashed during all my school years that you needed "bilingualism" to get a decent job, even in Quebec. This has no reason to be in the 21 century. Colonial bilingualism is no more acceptable today than it was before.
English is not imposed on Quebec by doing business with the outside world. It is certainly not imposed within Quebec itself, most anglophones and allophones being multilingual. If Quebec wants to interact with North America and the rest of the world, in the portion of business it does for export, it could use the language resource at its disposal. Isn't this one of "the valuable contributions [Bill 101] readily acknowledges"?Toddsschneider 21:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. If only the "doing business with the North America" had been the source of the bilingualisation of the French-speaking population of Quebec, there would not have been 1) much assimilation (since working in a second language alone is not the source of it in a normal situation) and 2) much bilingual francophone workers. For the needs of trade with essentially unilingual neighbours, only certain jobs require knowing English. Quebec bilingual anglophones would be a perfect bridge between the two worlds, better than most bilingual francophones could ever hope to be. -- Mathieugp 01:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I recommend reading these two texts to get the measure of the relatively weak progress over the past 30 years:
What is the real force of attraction of French in Quebec?, by Charles Castonguay, in Le Devoir on December 10, 2003
The real force of French in Quebec, by Charles Castonguay, in Le Devoir, December 20, 2005
(Charles Castonguay is the mathematics professor who developed the only tools that we have to monitor language shifts in Quebec.)
English is indeed the uncontested common language in 9 provinces out of 10. The French services offered in New Brunswick are meant for the minority, not for the majority.
Quite right, and after all, we are discussing minority rights, among others. Not just French or English rights *per se*. Those which apply in either situation of linguistic dominance Toddsschneider 16:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
The Francophones and Anglophones of the Nunavut should learn the language of the Inuit or go back home as far as I am concerned.
Back home? Even if they were born there?Toddsschneider 16:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, unless we want to promote ethnic nationalism among Inuits.
We certainly wouldn't want to promote ethnic nationalism.Toddsschneider 14:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Besides, English and French are too powerful and disruptive languages to be recognized in any official manner on Inuit land. -- Mathieugp 01:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
But those languages have been recognized, along with two inuit languages, in the Nunavut Act. You're saying that the people negotiating that Act, were wrong. And the voters were wrong, who as I understand it, ratified the Act.Toddsschneider 14:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I have never read the Act, nor do I have any idea what process was used to draft it, so I cannot comment. As a general rule, I think people who want to live in Inuit country (not temporary workers) should wish to have their children be brought up with the rest of the Inuit children. The idea that native francophones and anglophones should have special educational rights in Nunavut is preposterous. If the Inuit were free, if they had not been subjected to the Canadian constitution, a law initially adopted without their ancestors ever being consulted on it, they would not have agreed to this. -- Mathieugp 17:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
It is more than a conjecture that Quebec would not need a strong Charter to defend its official language once free. A simple line in the constitution saying that French is the official language of Quebec should normally suffice, but not before we have undone the historical wrongs. Undoing the historical wrongs does not mean persecuting our English-speaking compatriots, who will then become a real language minority inside our nation. When swinging the balance of justice, it is the centre that is aimed, not the other side. It is not necessary to deprive English-speakers of all rights in order to fully restore the rights of the majority of Quebec.
Following your statement, you would agree that, in order to preserve the anglophone community's right to self-preservation, the English school system should be more open, not less. You will argue that, at least, all anglophones of whatever national origin should be allowed to attend them.Toddsschneider 16:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that Jean-François Lisée suggestions that anglophone's share of the immigrant population of Quebec should be proportional to the community's size, so as to avoid downsizing, is where justice lies. The goal of the Charter is to rise francophones' capacity to integrate immigrants so that the population's relative size remains stable. Anglophones suffer from the same birth rate problems as francophones, but this weakness is compensated by a level of assimilation that is totally out of proportion. So out of proportion that it fills the gap even for outmigration.
The government of Quebec controls economic immigration to that province. It has had many years of such asymettrical federalism to address any putative "shortcomings". However, a rising number of immigrants are fluent in both official languages of Canada. They could integrate into Quebec society quite well. Multilingualism, and the advantages thereof, is not a zero-sum game.Toddsschneider 14:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
If there was asymmetrical federalism, there would be no need for ad hoc administrative negotiations between the Executives of Ottawa and Quebec: there would be a law stating "Quebec controls its immigration". Immigrants are not just workers to be used for their convenient language skills. English ought not to be a required skill for employment in Quebec, except in a number of specific scenarios for which the members of our now increasingly bilingual English-speaking minority are perfect candidates. An efficient society works in one common language. Every State in North America is a good example. Here, it is a problem to solve, gradually, through public policy. -- Mathieugp 17:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I think after independence, vocabulary will change. First of all, the anglophone institutions inside Quebec are for Canadians, not all native English speakers of the world. In the original charters, they were for Quebecers, which it will return to when we are free. We surely do not want to cut off all francophones from direct contact with Americans, Australians, English, Scots etc. because we recognize minority rights to our Canadian minority. The main public education system is the one functioning in Quebec's official language. If we truly want to be progressive though, we also need a serious policy to promote the most endangered of all Quebec languages, that of the Amerindians and the Inuit.
The institutions are run by and for anglophones, and open to all, except of course the schools. (There we must keep the francophone students, by law, from contamination by the dreaded English.) Such institutional recognition was enacted in supposedly good faith, to promote the healthy survival of said "cultural community", in Quebec parlance. Is freedom for the community, or only for those with the right passport? Besides, there are more than enough barriers to anglophone immigration to Quebec that we need not worry about hordes storming the gates to get in.
There are thousands of language communities in Quebec. Only francophones, anglophones and aboriginals enjoy elaborate collective rights. Quebec policy is straightforward: French is for all, except the Amerindians and the Inuit, who should not be assimilated because they are nations and therefore would be treated as mere ethnic minorities only with great injustice. Quebec finances public institutions that function in French for all, regardless of language, ethnic origin, religion. This includes Quebec anglophones of course. Indeed, these institutions are not for native francophones only, they are the default ones Quebecers pay for. The anglophones of Quebec have unique minority rights in addition to the ones they enjoy like everyone else as Quebecers. People who come to live with Quebecers are presumed to wish to contribute to the construction of this society as full and equal members.
Naturally, the competing and largely incompatible Canadian policy and ideology places immigrants to Quebec in a unique situation: they have a choice between two paths for integration. After independence, immigrants to Quebec will be placed in the same situation as when they immigrate to any of the 9 other provinces of the 50 States down south. Without independence, there are various options, some bad: 1) the status quo and its tensions and misunderstandings, 2) the breaking of Quebec as a society working primarily in French, i.e., its re-anglicization, doomsday for the majority of Quebecers and the ultimate (if much delayed) victory of the ethnocidal plan of Lord Durham, and some better: 3) the evolution of Canada as a multinational State with territorial language policies like in India, Switzerland or Belgium, 4) genuine asymmetrical federalism, with Quebec enjoying the level of political autonomy required for the normal development of a nation of 7 million. The adversaries of Quebec independence should stop putting their heads in the sand and work for 3) or 4) because 1) is temporary and 2) is criminal. -- Mathieugp 17:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
A complicated issue to solve through public policy will be outmigration of Quebecers of Anglo-Canadian culture, which narrow-minded and ignorant people blame on the separatists. As early as 1839, the Durham report raised the flag on the major problem of migration to the dynamic centres of the USA: "... I mean the great amount of re-emigration from the British colonies to the border states. This is a notorious fact. [...] What the proportion may be of those emigrants from the United Kingdom who, soon after their arrival, remove to the United States, it would be very difficult to ascertain precisely. [...] making no allowance for their increase by births, the entire population of Upper Canada should now have been 500,000, whereas it is, according to the most reliable estimates, not over 400,000. It would therefore appear, making all allowance for errors in this calculation, that the number of people who have emigrated from Upper Canada to the United States, since 1829, must be equal to more than half of the number who have entered the province during the eight years. Mr. Baillie, the present Commissioner of the Crown lands in New Brunswick, says, "a great many emigrants arrive in the province, but they generally proceed to the United States, as there is no sufficient encouragement for them in this province." Mr. Morris, the present Commissioner of the Crown lands, and surveyor-general of Nova Scotia, speaks in almost similar terms of the emigrants who reach that province by way of Halifax."
A lot of things have changed since, but today, as yesterday, most Quebecers, of all mother tongues, need to earn their living at some point. Francophones can truly only expect to work in French inside Quebec. Moving out of Quebec is quite a decision for them, which only bilinguals consider, since it also means living in English (working in English, they have been doing it for generations even inside Quebec). Quebec anglophones have it the other way around. Working in English is normality everywhere on the continent except in Quebec. Our English population can only truly expect to work either in English-French, or French-English or French only. If the problem is that anglophone's command of French is not good enough, we need to fix this. Otherwise, inside or outside Canada, Quebecers have little control over global North American economic trends. -- Mathieugp 01:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Some Quebecers may choose to live and work in English only, or French for that matter. That is their loss, as recent data shows, as bilingual workers make more money, all else being equal. If we need to "fix" unilingualism, how do you propose to enact this type of social engineering?

As for our poor bilinguals, one can live outside Quebec, and live in French, at least at home (ask the "Italians" and "Greeks" of Montreal how to retain their home language, they have been doing it for generations). But most francophones have *not* been working in English in Quebec for generations, it's a misconception.Toddsschneider 15:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Language of work has very little to do with the individual choice of workers. If the condition for be hired is to know math or to speak such language, they people do all they can to adapt by necessity.
You'll note that the "Italians" and "Greeks" are only trilingual in Montreal, whereas in Toronto they are largely unilingual and a lot less bilingual. That groups keep their native language in privacy of their homes is besides the point. The concern is for the use of languages in the public spaces where people of all kinds of tongues meet and must communicate.
In 1901, half the population born in Quebec was living in New England. Most were native francophones of course and the assimilation, with the first step being to learn English and become bilingual, on both sides of the border, was important in all urban centres such as Montreal. Conservation of the language was much better in rural areas. When Montreal was a British city with a lot of francophones in it, the francophones behaved as a segregated immigrant minority, even though they were in their home country. Things changed the sixties.
In Ireland, the Irish were still mostly speaking Irish even after generations of English domination. Only cities were English-speaking and since most people were living in rural area, they were isolated from English. Then came industrialization, the movement of impoverished farmers's sons and daughters to the cities, the incapacity to build urban institutions to support the Irish language, and in a short period of time, Irish people speaking Irish became a minority in Ireland. This was supposed to be the faith of Quebecers who speak Quebec French, but for various reasons, unforeseen and hardly foreseeable, most out of the control of British or Canadian policy, a critical mass of French-speakers succeeded at reconquering Montreal, becoming a numerical majority in it and succeeding also, though very late, at building powerful national institutions using the support of the provincial state. -- Mathieugp 17:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
But Quebecers as a "majority" will always be a problem inside a Canada that refuses constitutional reforms and language management as done in Switzerland, Belgium or India. -- Mathieugp 01:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Also regarding Dan Delmar's Suburban article, I do not know where he got the idea that Le Quartier chinois de Montréal was excepted regarding sign regulations. Sometimes people just do not know that the law, even the original, never had power over trademarks or franchise names, i.e., if a restaurant's name was registered as "Fo-Something", then a compliant sign should say "Fo-Something" or "Restaurant Fo-Something" rather than "Fo-Something Restaurant". When it was known as the Chinatown, it was your regular anglicized Chinese/Asian neighbourhood. People who did not speak English or Chinese (or whatever other Asian language) were unlikely to be understood in French. The Quartier chinois was gradually francized, and consequently superficially de-anglicized. After French-only exterior signs were judged anticonstitutional by the Supreme Court for violating - get this - businessmen's freedom of speech, the practice of trilingualism started being commonplace. Many restaurants have trilingual menus. Service in French, now in competition with English, has degraded in certain shops, but overall French speakers have never complained much about the Chinese community's response to francization efforts. The Chinese community has in fact been one of the most responsive and understanding of all and civil servants who worked for the Office de la langue française would be able to testify on this. I cannot report a single incident ever happening to me or anyone I know, unlike downtown Montreal or Crescent street. -- Mathieugp 04:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Bouchard-Taylor: mythes et réalités

http://www.cyberpresse.ca/article/20071126/CPACTUALITES/711260509/6730/CPACTUALITES

"7. Les immigrés ne parlent pas français. S'ils ne veulent pas apprendre notre langue, qu'ils retournent dans leur pays.

"La connaissance du français et le bilinguisme (anglais-français) ont beaucoup augmenté chez les immigrés au cours des dernières années. Entre 1980 et 1984, 38% des nouveaux arrivants connaissaient le français ou étaient bilingues. Cette proportion a atteint 50% pour la période de 2000 à 2004. Au cours des années 2001-2003 et 2004-2006, la proportion moyenne de nouveaux venus qui connaissaient le français est passée de 49% à 57%. Dans la population allophone* (autre que francophone, anglophone ou autochtone) établie au Québec, la proportion des personnes en mesure de converser en français était de 47% en 1971 comparativement à 74% en 2001."Toddsschneider (talk) 11:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Education language in schools

I am in the process of moving to Montréal, and all this discussion is pretty important to me. In particular, I was a little worried about this whole "children of immigrants can only send children to French-schools" thing (just FYI I don't speak French, but my wife does). However, I read this on this discussion earlier by Mathieugp:

The premise here is wrong. First, attendance to school is compulsory for all children from age 6 to 16, regardless of any criteria of origin or mother tongue. The only criteria here is citizenship and residence for the parents. A main system, where French is the language of instruction, is available for all parents to send their children to. English as a second language is taught in these schools. A second system, which in most States simply does not exist, where the language of instruction is English, is, in addition to the first, available for parents who are 1) citizens of Canada and 2) received their instructions in English in Canada, to send their children to. French as a second language is taught is these schools. There is no "blood" or even ethnic criteria here.

I think this point is very important and it should be part of the article under the Language of Instruction Section. I was under the wrong impression (and I believe many others) that sending your children to a French-speaking school meant they were not going to learn English, which is false. Either way they will learn both French and English, the only difference is that they will be taught e.g. math in French. I am sure if this were clarified it will make the article read better. I think I got the wrong impression from reading all this "opposition" nonsense talk. I am getting ready to move, and one of the first things I am doing is learning French, and am having lots of fun. --Scuac (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Scuac. You are correct in believing that your child will learn English in the French system, and French in the English system, as second language courses. If you got the majority of your primary and secondary education in English in Canada, then your child will have the right to go to a Quebec school in either the English or French system. If, however, you are immigrating to Quebec from anywhere else including the US, the UK, Australia, Jamaica, or any other English-speaking country, you are out of luck — your child will be obliged to enter the French system.
Consider your choice carefully (if you have one)...first of all, if your child is in a French school, in a short time his French language skills will exceed yours, making it difficult for you to help him with his homework, leaving it entirely up to your wife.
Secondly, if one day your child should want to pursue studies in, for example, math in an English-language (or French-language) institution either inside or outside of Quebec, the transition will be much easier if he went to an English (or French) school in the first place.
The third thing to consider is the “preponderance of blood" issue. Mathieugp is correct in that this does not refer to a genetic or ethnicity-based acquired right to attend English schools. What it does mean is a person can only pass on to his children the right to attend English schools in Quebec if he has exercised his own right to attend. In a word, if your child attends a French school for most of his primary and secondary education, then his children (and all descendents) will not have the right to attend English schools in Quebec (unless these descendents have children with people who still possess this right).
I hope you reconsider your position that all this "opposition talk" is nonsense. The Quebec language laws have had real and devastating effects on the anglo community and have removed freedom of choice from not only non-Canadian anglophones but from the majority francophones and from allophones as well. According to Wikipedia figures, in 1976 anglophones made up 12.8% of Quebec's population but in 2001 this was down to 8.0%. The increased rate of decline in the numbers of anglophones roughly coincides with the institution of Quebec's language laws.
I hope this helps clarify things. A word of advice, no matter which system you choose for your child, encourage him to make friends with children from both French and English (and more!!) language groups...that is the best way for him to acquire language skills. Enjoy your adventure in living in Montreal (by the way, it's not improper to write "Montreal" in English without the accent on the "E"), possibly the best city on Earth in which to live! CWPappas (talk) 08:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


Thank you for the clarification CWPappas. Given all this, I am now 99% convinced to send my children to a private school instead. Though, what would happen to their children (my grandchildren) in that case? Would they be able to attend a public English school? (assuming my children attended a private English school). --Scuac (talk) 05:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Scuac. The question, I believe, is this one:
Do you intend to move to Québec, because it is Québec, and for good? Then sending you children to the main school system of this host society to be brought up with the majority of the other children, of all origins, as typical Quebecers seems the right thing to do, under all considerations, especially ethical ones. If you are moving to Montreal, Canada for work, not necessarily for good, as most English-speakers tend to, then private English school would allow for your children to more easily resume their studies elsewhere were you to move to out another location, in Canada or the USA. However, they would probably hate you for making them loose their school friends. ;-)
Regarding the "Opposition section", yes it gives the wrong impression, and more than that it carries a strong prejudice against a linguistic minority of Canada whose linguistic human rights were denied for generations. Because Quebec is a conquered and colonized Province, the whole rapport between majority and minority is reversed. Native French-speakers are a linguistic minority in Canada, but they form a numeric majority only in Quebec. Native English speakers are a linguistic majority inside all Canadian provinces but one: Quebec. The colonization of Quebec by British settlers failed, but not by much. In the 19th century, over 25% of Quebec's population was English-speaking. Montréal became Montreal during that period and the city was, seemingly, as English-speaking as any other metropolitan area in North America. Only, it was surrounded by French-speaking farmers who made up the majority of the population in the province.
When industrialization hit North America, Quebec farmers's sons and daughters were pushed towards the cities as they were everywhere else. In their case however, this meant assimilation to English, loss of language, culture, the destruction of this nationality which their ancestors had vowed to preserve in the name of human dignity. Quebecers did everything they could to slow down the inevitable, but eventually it became real: Quebec was all urbanized, and the majority of the people in Quebec cities were French-speaking workers who had to be bilingual to earn a living. In a normal situation, only immigrants go through something like this, not a whole nation.
When the literature of the decolonization of Africa entered Quebec, its intellectuals gained an acute sense of Quebecers' position as a colonized people and sought to redress the situation, politically or else. There was a lot of agitation in that post-WWII era which saw Quebec rise to pretty much the level of other Western cultures. There were commissions of inquiry from the federal government, the Quebec government, and what was already intuitively known became statistically known. On the question of the situation of the French language in Canada, the subject of language shifts especially, good reads, summarizing it well, would be these:
1. Charles Castonguay, Getting the facts straight on French : Reflections following the 1996 Census, in Inroads Journal, volume 8, 1999, pages 57 to 77
2. Charles Castonguay, Transcript of a Standing Joint Commitee on Official Languages hearing, recorded on April 28, 1998
The Charter of the French language is a law which tries to accomplish through legislative measures what, in a free society happens through unwritten social rules, applied as consequence of the very existence of a State. The colonization of Quebec was ultimately a failure for a wide variety of reasons, the system of laws protecting Quebecers, and Quebecers alone, being one of them. Laws need to be revised when they do not serve the common good, even if it means that a majority, pretending to be a victimized minority, disagrees with the loss of privilege that may accompany the change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathieugp (talk • contribs) 23:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Mathieugp, you seem to be a bit confused. In your paragraph above beginning "Regarding the 'Opposition section'...", you claim that "Quebec is a conquered and colonized Province,..." and then later state that "The colonization of Quebec was ultimately a failure...". Which is it? My understanding of Quebec history is that France colonized the territory belonging to the First Nations, then the British colonized the French colony, and then Quebec became a province of Canada. To put is even more simply, the British colonized a colony, and now we are a full-fledged province of a free and democratic country.
People living in Quebec, the present-day province of Canada, enjoy full Canadian citizenship and an unfettered political system. Unoppressed by Canada, there have been two referenda asking Quebeckers if they would want Quebec to be sovereign in the past thirty years that were not only "permitted" by Canada, but failed in obtaining even a simple majority of participating Quebeckers who supported the "yes" option. In addition, the Bloc Quebecois, a federal political party that defines itself as being devoted to the promotion of sovereignty for Quebec and only runs candidates in ridings within Quebec, has occupied the position of Official Opposition at the federal level. Quebec has also produced its share of Canadian prime ministers, especially in the past sixty years. Surely, no colonizer would tolerate these things.
You also wrote that "Laws need to be revised when they do not serve the common good, even if it means that a majority, pretending to be a victimized minority, disagrees with the loss of privilege that may accompany the change." Now, just which minority is pretending... the one that is restricting access to English schools in Quebec, or the minority that has to qualify for said access (or the people who want to qualify, but don't)? Why not let the population of Quebec determine what the common good is in true democratic fashion by letting individuals select in which language their children are educated and in which language their commercial signs are written (and if a merchant is stupid enough to alienate the majority by not including French on his signs then business will suffer a demise due to a form of marketplace natural selection). Would the linguistic majority of Quebec be willing to cede privileges? No, the Charter was sold to the people of Quebec as some sort of emergency measure to preserve a language and culture supposedly on the brink of demise in spite of its survival after centuries of alleged oppression.
Sure, in the past there was linguistic discrimination in large Anglo-owned businesses in Quebec. We all agree that this was unjust but what has Quebec society learned from its past? How to draft laws that are not only discriminatory, but constitutional as well! "The pendulum swinging the other way" is just another way to say "pay-back". Were there laws back then preventing francophones from putting signs up only in French or from hiring unilingual francophone employees? I understand that as the Francophone population acquired wealth, they were able to conduct business on their own terms, according to market forces. There were no anti-French laws.
In your final paragraph you wrote "The Charter of the French language is a law which tries to accomplish through legislative measures what, in a free society happens through unwritten social rules...". So, Quebec is not a free society that has to resort to totalitarian laws to achieve its social and demographical aims. I'm glad to see you put it down in black and white. CWPappas (talk) 10:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Let me enlighten you. Quebec was part of New France, a remote French Province. New France was a colony territory, largely occupied by a variety of peoples, claimed by the King of France. France no longer claims "ownership" of anything but the Saint Pierre and Miquelon Island. So France no longer colonizes Quebec today. In addition, the French monarchy was decapitated, so there is really no danger. The Quebec part of New France was ceded through treaty to Great Britain. All former French subjects of Quebec became British subjects, in theory with equal rights to other British subjects. Quebecers were denied the benefits of an English-type constitutional government, enjoyed by all colonists in the other British American Provinces. In order to prevent Quebecers from joining the Continental Congress, tyranny was installed at Quebec. Despotic powers were given to General Haldimand, a Swiss mercenary. It worked, but the other colonies emancipated nonetheless and the aristocratic rulers of Great Britain lost a great deal. Fearing much for loosing it all because of the French revolution which scared all the nobles of Europe much more than anything that could have possible happened in America, Home Secretary Grenville (responsible for the colonies) answered the petitions of the enlightened class of Quebecers who wanted a House of Commons with eligibility to all without regards to origin or religion. (There were many who wanted it for Protestants alone.) Grenville drafted what became the 1791 constitution, which created Upper Canada (Ontario) on some unsettled country in the former Pays d'en Haut, formerly a dependence of French Canada (that's where the good furs were). The 1791 constitution, very liberal in principle, was effectively prevented from working and serve the common good from 1791 to 1837 by denying the elected representatives from doing their parliamentary work. The Union plan, rejected almost unanimously in Lower Canada and to a great extent in Upper Canada in 1822, was put in practice after the Durham report. That is the beginning of the colonization of Quebec by British North Americaners, especially Ontarians. In 1841, Quebec is twice conquered and twice colonized. But liberalism was very strong in my country back then, so the political influence of Franco-Catholic Quebecers was not completely shut down as expected. The Parliament of Montreal was burned down by fanatics in protest, but the power in place feared annexation to the United States, and in 1867 the unjust in its principle legislative union was turned into equally unjust federal union. This is the birth of the new British North American Dominion, aka what we call Canada today, and the nation-building project that goes along with it. In 1931, this new State gained independence from Great Britain. Since then, Quebecers are only colonized by British North Americans. This is where we are now. This is why there are so many commissions and referendum on constitutional matters in your country. -- Mathieugp (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
You have well described the recent events, except for the part where you wrote "Unoppressed by Canada". Quebec is daily oppressed at the political level by Ottawa. It is less oppressed than before the Quiet Revolution, I grant this. The creation of a coast-to-coast Canadian nationality and citizenship in 1947 doesn't change much to the inequality of the union of Quebec inside Canada. -- Mathieugp (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The majority pretending to be a minority in Quebec are Canadian anglophones. The Quebec people, through its National Assembly, determined that it was irrational and immoral to let the linguistic segregation that we inherited from colonial times in our education system be the main factor in the definitive downsizing of francophones in Quebec (and therefore also Canada and all of North America). Consequently, the representatives of the people adopted a law so that it becomes clear that French is a language for everyone in Quebec (not just native speakers) and the cement of our national unity. Optionally, since Quebecers recognize language and cultural rights to Quebec anglophones (as a minority, not as a Canadian majority in competition with the majority of Quebec), some Quebecers can also use a parallel and publicly funded school network, which has simply no equivalent in any other Canadian Province. Please, read the facts on language demographics (not in Wikipedia, although I have a good draft in my fr.wikipedia.org account) and get acquainted with the much documented scientific evidence of a demographic collapse of the francophone population in Canada and North America. -- Mathieugp (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
You a right in saying that when repairing an injustice, there is a danger of swinging the balance all the way to the other side and miss the center. But you a wrong in describing Quebec's Charter of the French language as not aiming for a balance. The reason you think this, is because you ignore (or refuse to learn about) the initial imbalance upsetting the majority-minority relation inside Quebec. The past is very much with us as we still live under the rule of the same fundamental laws adopted before any of us was born. You can start learning on the subject by reading the Thomas Jefferson of Quebec, Louis-Joseph Papineau. This is a good read to learn of the initial cause of the imbalance (and consequently injustice) we are dealing with: Speech of the Hon. Louis-Joseph Papineau before the Institut canadien on the occasion of the 23rd anniversary of this society, December 1867 -- Mathieugp (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
No, Quebec is not a free society. It is a province of Canada. And it has to resort to the full apparel of human rights legal instruments to try slow down the effect of its being locked inside a constitutional framework designed to dispossess its majority. -- Mathieugp (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Mathieugp, please do not insert your comments into my, or others', posts. It makes it next to impossible to follow who said what, especially for editors not involved in the exchange. Besides, it is just plain rude to carve up someone's post. I have removed your comments from my last post and placed them above, together and unaltered. If you feel a need to nuzzle your words so close to mine, please copy-and-paste my words into your new post.
In the first of five of your paragraghs above, you restate that Quebec is being colonized by "British North Americans". I guess by "British North Americans", you mean Canada and her prime ministers, including the ones from Quebec. Again, were Canada colonizing Quebec and wanted to make things difficult for francophones, it would not put up with things put into Quebec law by Quebeckers and the two referenda on Quebec's "independence". Again, the British colonized a colony, and now we are a full-fledged province of a free and democratic country.
In your paragraph 2/5, you talk about "daily oppressed at the political level by Ottawa". Come on! Specifically, what oppression are you talking about? Remember that this was your response to my paragraph 2/5 where I wrote that if Canada were colonizing Quebec, Canada would never have tolerated separation movements and that Quebeckers enjoy full Canadian citizenship and an unfettered political system. If Quebeckers are opressed daily, give me a list of the oppressions from the last week. It is rediculous to make such claims. How is Quebec not equal to any of the other provinces?
As for paragraph 3/5, again you do the same thing...you switch between attributing Anglos (and, presumably, Francos, too) to suit each individulal sentence! You opened the paragraph with "The majority pretending to be a minority in Quebec are Canadian anglophones." and then later "Quebecers recognize language and cultural rights to Quebec anglophones (as a minority, not as a Canadian majority in competition with the majority of Quebec)". So, you see, Anglos are designated as being a minority by the greater population of Quebec and certainly have legitimate concerns. Quebec has defined what an anglophone is, and a Quebec anglophone (for the purposes of school enrolement) is reserved exclusively for Canadians. Americans, Australians, Brits, etc. have no such claim... how rediculous! I live outside of Quebec and on my school tax bill I have the option of channeling my taxes to a French-language school board here in Ontario, so Quebec is not the only province that offers "a parallel and publicly-funded school network". People from France have access to French schools in Ontario, so why don't people from England have access to English schools in Quebec? We are not talking demographic trends over generations here, we're talking about real present-day families being forced into the French system when there is an English system capable of accommodating them.
In your paragraph 4/5 in response to my paragraph 4/5 in which you claim that I am "wrong in describing Quebec's Charter of the French language as not aiming for a balance." because I "ignore (or refuse to learn about) the initial imbalance upsetting the majority-minority relation inside Quebec." This was exactly my point—we should be looking at balance from a modern perspective and seek a moral and just equality for all Quebecers regardless of language, origins, etc. Whatever Louis-Joseph Papineau said in 1867 cannot possibly justify Quebec's laws of social engineering today. How is the pendulum balanced when it is getting a heafty push by people who refuse to relegate grudges mentioned in a paper published in 1867 to the past? Please instead of sending me a reference to a 141 year old document, send me a reference to laws imposed on the Quebec people that prevented anyone from entering the French school system (there were some school board regulations, like the one that prevented francophone jews from entering the French school system so they had to attend English protestant schools), prevented employers from hiring unilingual francophones, and made French-only signs (commercial or otherwise) illegal.
As for your paragraph 5/5...to which dispossesed majority are you referring now? The Anglo-quebeckers or the Franco-quebeckers? Who are freer, Anglo-quebeckers or Franco-quebeckers? Which laws today (i.e., not in 1867) arbitrarily define a community, limit its membership, divert people who anywhere else would be the poster-boys of this community to schools teaching in a language other than their mother tongue when a school system exists that can accomodate them in their own language, and forbids unilingual signs in their mother tongue? I assume that the dispossess majority you wrote of is the Quebec francophones. How are they dispossessed now? I know you will answer this question but do not forget to list laws that similar to those of the Charter that negatively impact Canadian francophones, in numbers approaching those of the Quebec anglos when Bill 101 came into play. Let's try not to dwell on events before Bill 101 or 22 or even the Quiet Revolution.
Please, try to answer my questions directly rather than going off on a rhetorical historical tangent that has nothing to do with today except in the expression of centuries-old grudges. CWPappas (talk) 16:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
1. First, the reason I replied point by point was precisely for clarity and to avoid retyping what was already typed. To follow who said what, you sign every block. But I see no point in arguing for this way of replying over another: it is a question of habit and taste. Second, this will be my last reply as I have better things to do, same for yourself I presume.
2. Yes, British North America or Canada took over Quebec. To me, that is just a fact. Yes, it is my opinion that politicians from Quebec who go to Ottawa without the intent to reform the federal system are participating in maintaining an unjust state of affairs. This participation is in fact essential to the keeping of the status quo. Without those Quebecers, it would become very visible to all that Quebec was managed for interests mostly outside Quebec itself, in exchange for private money or public jobs accepted by a small group of Quebecers well-connected with the great parties. As a proof of Canada not wanting to "make things difficult for francophones", you say that if it were so "it would not put up with things put into Quebec law by Quebeckers and the two referenda on Quebec's "independence"". How is this supposed to be a proof of anything? Because the federal State only intervened militarily once in October 1970 means Quebec is free the rest of the time? First, you are giving a narrow meaning to freedom here. We are talking about political, economic, and cultural freedoms. These are mostly collective in nature. Second, Canada forced amendments to Quebec laws that are injurious to francophones as a minority in Canada. Again, Quebec was a French province, then a British province. Its faith, like that of most successful colonies was simply to become an independent nation. Instead, its emancipation was prevented by the force of arms, and it was annexed to the neighboring province against her will. When the legislative union proved inefficient as a system of domination, the federal union of all British North American colonies was tried and kept. Had the "confederal" State been actually confederal, then maybe it could have been not too bad, since Quebec regained an exclusive Parliament. being free to use her Parliament for the common good of her people is what the Quebec nation fought for from 1763 to 1867. Instead, the federal State came to acquire an enormous amount of power over time which it used and still uses to build a sense of national unity, coast-to-coast. To make one nation out of 10 provinces where there are no real national distinctions is easy and maybe for the common good. To make one nation out of 10 provinces where one or more of them has a distinct nationality amounts to an act of aggression on the peoples which end up forced into a position of an ethnic minority, continually battling against the destruction of their social cohesion. Any union involving Quebec has to be supra-national, like the European union for example. Europeans do not send 50% of their tax money to Brussels like we send to Ottawa.
3. Yes, Quebec is daily oppressed, by a constitution it did not sign. A constitution which gives legal life to a State which the majority of Canadians use to pursue their national interests (which is just) disregarding those of Quebec (which is unjust),interests which Ottawa denies exist or (more recently) resolves do exist but fail to follow the consequences of that recognition (which is stupid). As we speak, I am sending half of my tax money to representatives of my nation at the National Assembly and the other half to the representatives of a nation over and above the former. The Canadian State, by its very existence as a State considered the central, national, most important, and common to all, while provinces are reduced to mere administrative sub-entities, oppresses Quebec, which needs the tax money it sends to Ottawa to develop itself, according to its own national priorities. The consequences are immeasurable and global. One example, right now, it is both in the interest of all of mankind and, luckily for us, in the economic interest of Quebecers to meet the conditions of Kyoto and even to go beyond it, but the federal system makes it practically impossible for Quebec to freely pursue that interest. Quebec IS equal to all provinces, and that is where the inequality lies. If, to give a clear example, Germany had made all of France a German Lander, then an entire nation, many centuries old, would have the legislative capacity of any other Lander. How would France remain France under those conditions? How would treating the whole of the French people as equal German citizens help the situation? The inequality would not really be at the level of individual citizens or relation with a national majority and minorities. The equality must be achieved among peoples to respect the human rights of all individuals, not among provinces whose political situation was determined through wars. Constitutions are not fixed laws of physics that we cannot change. They are human-made, and they must be changed when they do damage and abolished when they no longer serve any good. Thomas Jefferson thought that every generation should have to right to revise the constitution under which it is born. I could not agree more. Every generation of Quebecers has wanted to change their constitution ever since the 1776 and 1789.
4. "Americans, Australians, Brits, etc." cannot be people who received most of their education in English in Quebec or Canada. You seem to assume it just for people to immigrate to Quebec as if it was not a society distinct by its laws, language and culture. If they did have access to a publicly-funded education system in English inside Quebec, then I think there would no longer be any person in their rightful mind who would fail to see the colonial situation. People who immigrate to Quebec, we want them to be a part of mainstream Quebec life, as equal members of our nation. In addition, Quebec recognized the fact that a national minority of Quebec anglophones did take root in Quebec, and that they have to right to exist as a community with all the institutions they already have. It was thought unjust to make the children of these people experience radical assimilation to French overnight, so their parents were given an option. Later, the unelected judges of the Supreme Court of Canada forced Quebec to change its law so that parents who received their education in English anywhere in Canada could do it. Now, a lobby pushes for people who studied in English anywhere on Earth to be able do the same. This is wrong in so many ways. It is wrong in practice because it is detrimental to the majority of Quebecers considering the language demographic situation of that Province, and it is wrong in principle because the English-speaking majority of Canada, holding the majority of the seats in Ottawa, should not have the power to over-rule Quebec's legislation every time our two nations' needs and interests diverge. People who wish to become New Quebecers should not be given the option to upset the very weak balance between Francophones and Anglophones. Quebec is not just any other province, it is the only one where public life goes on in French. Consequently, Quebec does not open wide the door to segregation along linguistic lines, something which Ottawa works so hard to maintain. In Ontario, the minority of Francophones, most of Quebec origin, were denied their schools for decades. By law, Ottawa forced Ontario to do minimal things, which are not at all comparable to what Anglophones get in Quebec. All Quebecers pay for the English schools, not just those who chose to "channel [their] taxes to a French-language school board". Regarding the contradiction you saw between my saying that anglophones of Quebec are not a real linguistic minority, comparable with Francophones in Canada, I believe you are missing the chronology of events. 1) 1976. A party aiming at achieving Sovereignty-Assocation wins the majority of the seats in the National Assembly. 2) 1977. The Charter of the French language is adopted. 3) 1980. The Quebec electorate does not give Levesque the mandate to negotiate Sovereignty-Association. So, the anglophone majority, which is only a minority in Quebec, never became a real national minority in a separate Quebec. The supreme law of Canada still applies to Quebec. The Charter of the French language went on living its life as a simple provincial law of Canada. In 1982, some clauses of the new Canadian charter of rights gave grounds to a systematic attack of Quebec's language law to suit the interests of anglophones in Quebec, as a majority in Canada, against those of francophones, reminded once again that they are just a minority in a Canada. To whole premise of individual "freedom to chose" is ridiculous from the start. A person's freedom ends where that of others begin. Right now, some people claim the freedom to buy Hummers. I disagree. It think it should be illegal to even build them. People who like to drive big military vehicles can go and get themselves some real action in Afghanistan. If they really comprehend our environmental situation, then Hummer buyers' understanding of freedom is anti-social and amounts to claiming that individuals should have an absolute power to arbitrarily decide what they prefer according to their tastes and that no public power should be able to stop them. That has nothing to do with equal freedoms to all and government for the common good.
5. I find it is a rather poor rhetorical argument to dismiss a point of view on an old law when that old law in still in force. I do not see how better understanding the way in which the supreme law of your country came to be enacted, and the amount of injustices it brought to Quebec, is no longer valid today. From what you wrote, you seem to be against public policy doing social engineering. What else should be doing it if not laws adopted democratically by a representative assembly? Bankers and Corporations? The fundamental unit of society is the a human being who becomes a citizen with responsibility at age 18 (or else). I think an active citizen should care to see justice happen through public policy, not the arbitrary of private individuals who managed to get way too much economic power while people were not looking. Social engineering can be done for the common good of a population or against it. The union of Ontario and Quebec was brought specifically to alter the ethnic composition of Canada, precisely to "make [Lower Canada] an English Province [that] should never again be placed in any hands but those of an English population." (Durham Report) And so the legislative union did, initially, and continued to do when it became federal, but of course only at federal level. To my knowledge, there never was in Canada a more important plan at engineering society than this one which aimed at giving political and socio-economic ascendancy to a minority of Anglo-Protestants over a majority of Franco-Catholics. This was the works of a minority of crooks, not the whole of the Anglo-Protestants of course.
6. I did not give you the link to Papineau's 1867 speech to try to justify the Charter of 1977. I gave it to you as background information to understand how the supreme law of Canada, which contributed to upset the majority-minority relation inside Quebec in myriad ways, came to be enacted. The justification for the Charter of the French language in to be found in most declarations or charters defining human rights. The detailed collection of ills Quebec society suffered when it comes to language are recorded in the papers of the B & B commission and the Gendron commission. The sociolinguistic and legal analysis of the problems and the argued and rationalized remedies proposed are to be found in their reports. Unfortunately, to my knowledge, they are not online. You can also read these two memoirs in defense of the Charter the last time it was attacked by the anti-French lobby:
Ethical Reflections on Bill 101, by Gregory Baum (Quebec)
A Legal Opinion on International Law, Language, and the Future of French Canada, by Ramsey Clark (USA)
7. There were, to my knowledge, as of 1867, no laws preventing catholics from entering catholic schools and protestants from entering protestants schools in Quebec, as per the constitution (linguistic school boards are a new thing). Regarding language, most francophones being catholics, most protestant anglophones, there never was much of a problem in Quebec in terms of access. The same cannot be said about the English provinces. Here is a list of anti-French laws and regulations that were in force for generations inside the Dominion:
Les minorités francophones au Canada et les lois anti-françaises
The author of this site, a linguist from Université Laval, was contracted to work on a bilingual site for Heritage Canada. The site's address is www.salic-slmc.ca . It has been offline for many months for reasons I ignore. The WayBack Machine at archive.org gives connection errors beginning with the update of Dec. 5 2006, which had a lot of information in English on the same subject. I do not believe the information was there before that update. In any case, before the site went offline, I had the time to copy and past a few texts of law:
Regulation 17
Act to Provide that the English Language Shall be the Official Language of the Province of Manitoba
Laurier-Greeway Compromise of 1896
These laws participated in engineering a largely unilingual Dominion and partly explain why 85% of all native francophones of Canada reside in Quebec. The current laws can be read in a year 2000 compilation here:
Annotated Language Laws of Canada
These laws brought a late justice that resulted in changes that can be considered "too little, too late". The fact that Ottawa's legislation offers services in French only "where the number justifies" sure does not help isolated and numerically small minorities by much.
8. Regarding Jews in Quebec, you are mistaken completely. Jews were not allowed in either Protestant schools or Catholic schools because, well, they were practicing another religion. The confessional school system in Quebec existed in virtue of the constitution of 1867. A secular system, much wanted by many Quebec liberals, was hardly feasible because francophones wanted it in French for all and anglophones in English for all. Members of the Jewish community demanded a Jewish school board at some point. It almost became a reality because the Quebec liberals were just about to adopt a law on this under Premier Louis-Alexandre Taschereau in 1930, but conservative pressures from Christians made the Jews demanding this arrangement abandon their request. The children ended up going to English school and were assimilated as Anglo-Canadians like in the rest of Canada. There were quotas on Jews at McGill. I do not know about other universities, but it is possible.
Regarding the hiring of unilingual francophones, there were, as far as I know, no laws or regulations explicitly stating what was the real social practice which was to consider unilingual francophones as immigrants who should learn English. It is notorious that, in Montreal, among owners of big retail chains, Mr. Steinberg, owner of grocery stores by the same name, was much more open to hiring francophones than the other ones who tended to be Anglo-Saxons, sometimes Quebecers, sometimes Ontarians and also Americans. I do not know in which proportion. It is through social norms and the economic power of a minority, completely out of proportion, that the English language imposed itself in Quebec despite the numeric majority of francophones. The economic inequalities, consequence of the political situation of Quebec, were cause of much injustice, and not just at the linguistic level.
9. I must say that it appears to me a mistake to talk about the constitutional crisis of Canada as "old grudges". Injustices of the past do not go away with time. On the contrary, they worsen and nurture new injustices and things get very complicated. You cannot explain the present situation without reference to the past.
10. Quebec anglos, being in 1977, the only Quebecers with access to all schools of both linguistic school boards, were the only ones who could be considered, from your point of view, not negatively impacted by Bill 101. Later it was all Canadians educated in English in Canada. It is all the other Quebecers who are legislatively directed to the mainstream school network, in which the language of instruction is that of the majority, as is in every province of Canada and State of the USA (to my knowledge). It is Quebec non-anglophones and immigrants to Quebec who are are prevented, since 1977, from taking an active part in the downsizing of the francophone community of Quebec, which threatens to gradually bring the end of French Canada altogether. This cannot possibly compare to the interprovincial emigration of many Quebec anglophones to other parts of what they consider their own country. The main reason for their moving is, as any serious analysis shows, economic: they study in English, search for jobs all over Canada (and sometimes all over the USA and the Commonwealth) and then move to where their career takes them. The same is not possible for francophones if they wish to work in their language. The only place it can happen is in Quebec, and quite often they still need to speak English to a certain extent to do their job. The first phenomenon described is a demographic collapse, a living human population never to be replaced by future generations speaking the same language. The second phenomenon is people, attracted by jobs outside Quebec and/or, it would appear, unhappy to live in a mostly French-speaking province, moving to another province where all is in English. If they had been forced to move to another country where language was different, as a direct consequence of a Quebec law making no other choice humanly possible, then it would have been something else, and possibly injurious to their linguistic human rights. But this is something only non-anglophones have been acquainted with in North America.
11. Immigrants to Canada, like immigrants to the USA, want the best future for their children, which is normal. It is observed by them that society functions primarily in English and that access to equality in employment implies learning English. That is why they choose, without any explicit law, to send their children to be educated in English schools, often the only ones available in their neighbourhood. The law operating here is a social norm. When immigrants to Canada chose Quebec not knowing that it is a nation distinct by her laws, language and culture, they do not immediately understand why it is so. Ottawa told them that Canada was a country where English and French are both equally official and that one may choose according to individual preference. Then they land in Quebec and are told something different. Immigrants are not to blame in this, they are just intentionally misinformed by Ottawa because in Ottawa they chose to ignore the existence of Quebec, except during elections.
You have asked me to answer your biased questions by following your own premisse that anything before the Quiet Revolution is irrelevant. I cannot do this, because I think it is an error to try to understand any situation in the present without understanding how it came to be. Enjoy your reading! ;-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charter_of_the_French_Language/Archive_1&oldid=539904911"