Xref: utzoo can.politics:1974 can.francais:70 Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!watcgl!lrbartram From: lrbartram@watcgl.waterloo.edu (lyn bartram) Newsgroups: can.politics,can.francais Subject: Re: Bourassa and bill 101? Message-ID: <7401@watcgl.waterloo.edu> Date: 20 Dec 88 00:59:47 GMT References: <1988Dec13.133220.28851@lsuc.uucp> <4321@hcr.UUCP> <809@auvax.UUCP> <230@electro.UUCP> <561@cavell.UUCP> Reply-To: lrbartram@watcgl.waterloo.edu (lyn bartram) Distribution: can Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 80 In article <561@cavell.UUCP> gilles@cavell.UUCP (Gilles Simon Dionne) writes: (concerning the events in Quebec vis-a-vis the sign law) > - It promotes the culture by directly exposing people to the language As a Quebecoise, i would find it hard to live in any corner of the province and not be exposed to French! > - I don't think Bourassa is trying to further the cause of french > throughout Canada at all, he probably understands that each time > Quebec deals in a way which is perceived to be unfavorable by the > english minority in Quebec, he actually gives further ammunition to the > premiers of the other provinces to deal unfavorably with their own > minorities. Gilles is completely right, and this is a fact which has as yet not been grasped by other Canadians and especially by francophones outside Quebec. Bourassa and the other politicians are not AT ALL concerned with the plight of French outside Quebec. They are concerned with Quebec as the North American Motherhouse of the French language and Quebecois culture. Those anglophones who say "nyah,nyah, Quebec shat on their minority and now we can do it to ours" don't realize that to Quebecois this is a case of apples and oranges. (Not to mention immature on the part of the other provinces.) This will, however, i presume be the death knell for Meech Lake. > - I don't understand why you say that this will turn people off french. > As has been the case since Bill 101, people will have to have some > rudimentary french to understand what the signs are saying. If english > signs became commonplace again, you would just be sending the message > to the english community that french isn't necessary anymore( at least > as far as understanding signs is concerned). I have a problem with this, although i may express it badly. I am one of a vanishing breed ( :) ) - a Quebec anglophone. I, and 5 generations of my family before me, was born and brought up in Montreal. (I am bilingual, although 2.5 years at school in Ontario is eroding my facility with the language.) For seven years I was a member of a small business in Quebec working with 75% French clients. So what does this make me? I have lived in four provinces in Canada, and in Europe, and i am most at home in the polyglot fabric of Quebec. I understand the anguish and frustration of my Quebecois friends who feel immersed in an encroaching cultural tidal wave against which they have only fragile weapons of language legislation. After all, for many years my family sent their children to Europe to learn French (or didn't learn it at all). The English in Quebec had to be forced to learn French - and many refused, and left (to our advantage who stayed, and hopefully to theirs as well). But as has been forcefully pointed out by several journalists, the anglos who stayed HAVE played by the rules. They are bilingual. Their children for a great part attend French schools. These people approached the question from the point of view of those who have already aquiesced to the reasonable requirements of a French society. I want to return to Quebec, but i fell i should have the right to do so as a full citizen, and i don't have that right if i can't advertise in the languages i choose AFTER i obey the requirements of French publicity. This isn't sending a message to anglos that French is "unneccessary". It is, instead, stating that Quebec can tolerate other cultures, as it has traditionally been the best at doing of all the Canadian provinces. One can think of it as a question of enfranchisement. I do not expect English to be an official language of Quebec. I do, however, not expect it to be forbidden! What does this mean for the political process? I don't know, but i do feel that no one's language should be illegal if predominance is given the language of the land. I was recently in Switzerland and France - the people over there think this issue is BIZARRE, since their rules are inclusive (you must advertise in the national languages) as opposed to exclusive (you may not advertise in this language). The more serious issue here is the underlying one of political accountability. The Liberals made a serious campaign commitment to support bilingual signs, and are now reneging. Bourasssa's problem is knotty: as has been pointed out, he has been waffling on this problem for a while, and has no ethical commitment on it one way or another. Thus he's fence-sitting and enraging everyone. Much has been made in Quebec of the fact that it is an "external" court (Supreme) that has judged Bill 101 against an "external" code (CAnadian Constitution). We are all forgetting that the language ruling of this morning is also directly opposed to the Quebec Charter of Rights. The Charter has been ensconced in the province well before the Canadian Charter of Rights and is a source of (justifiable) pride to the citizens of Quebec as an indication of a progressive and tolerant society. Anyway, it is law. The current case went both to the Quebec Superior Court and the Supreme Court of Canada at Bourassa's request, and the fact that the Liberals choose now to ignore the judicial process has more dangerous repercussions than just language legislation. What next?