Xref: utzoo can.politics:2023 can.francais:105
Path: utzoo!attcan!lsuc!hcr!jimr
From: jimr@hcr.UUCP (Jim Robinson)
Newsgroups: can.politics,can.francais
Subject: Re: Nationhood
Message-ID: <4399@hcr.UUCP>
Date: 28 Dec 88 01:22:28 GMT
References: <560@cavell.UUCP> <726@myrias.UUCP> <727@myrias.UUCP> <2063@van-bc.UUCP> <823@auvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson)
Distribution: can
Organization: HCR Corporation, Toronto
Lines: 31

In article <823@auvax.UUCP> charlesv@auvax.UUCP writes:
>............................................................Unfortunately,
>in many parts of Canada, tolerance of the linguistic rights of French
>minorities is as great as that demonstrated by the Quebec National Assembly for
>those of Quebec's English-speaking minority. This is generally manifested in
>funding for education, etc.
>.
>.
>.................................. Bourassa's catering to narrow political
>interests in Quebec is reprehensible. So, however, is the attitude in Alberta
>for instance, that a large cultural group such as the Ukranians gets no special
>rights, so why should a tiny (30,000) group like the French?

This is hardly a fair comparison. Allowing bilingual signs is a
passive act.  The government does not have to lift a finger or spend
a penny in order for this right to be "permitted". And, even more
importantly, we are talking about what virtually any other
democratic nation would call a *fundamental* right.

On the other hand, funding for eductaion, etc requires money. You
are now asking people to divert money that is badly needed for
underfunded and overcrowded hospitals and universities so that what
is often no more than 5% of the population may be able to enjoy
part of their existence in their mother tongue. 

It is true that Quebec Anglos do have their own institutions.
However, in my mind this is not even close to being a substitute for
as precious a right as freedom of expression; a right enjoyed by
every minority group in every part of the country except Quebec.

J.B. Robinson