British citizen creates national uproar in Quebec

[Oexmelin]

@Malthus: Your post pretty much sums up the points of contention between us.

And I beg to differ with your differing. If you see my subsequent post, you will see an admittedly crude timeline of the relevent events. While there was protections for federal debates and trials in the federal jurisdiction (which as you may know are a tiny and specialized subset of trials in Canada), both sensible enough where the two major geopolitical divisions mostly spoke different languages, "Official bilingualism" as we know it was a creature of the late '60s early '70s.

Surely this is way to narrow a way to look at the issue. This would be like saying the Constitution is a recent problem in Canadian history because the Constitution is from 1982.

Bilingualism is a continuous issue and matter of debate in Canada, regardless of what the latest legal incarnation of the debate is. Canada's language of political debate discussion in 1792, Manitoba School in 1890, Ontario schools in 1890-1910... This was all about the relative place of both languages in Canada.

No-one is making the children of German-Americans learn the language of said Natives. 

You are going around the tradition issue by using the utilitarian argument, but use it selectively. Based on utilitarian readings, why hasn't Canada adopted the American legal system ? Much better for business, less hassle, a historical anomaly at last corrected. Why should we continue to honor the Loyalists ? So far, I have yet to see you tackle this issue. Is it completely irrelevant ? When should it come into play ? When shouldn't it ? Why legal system and not language.

If your answer is:

unlike your chosen example of the common law, it did not develop organically.

Then it is really disingenuous. Common Law did not develop organically. It came with the luggage of the British Army. It created lots of dissension and was politcally fought within Canada - so much so that a whole new province was carved out to stop the whining Anglos from complaining about Code Civil. It was imposed upon the Natives with guns. Nothing organic about that.

And this is what I think you dismiss out of hand, as Zoupa's answer demonstrate: power. Even if phrased with the same words, a sentence or a legal utterance has some very different impacts if it is in a hugely dominant context (where it reads like a grace), if it is in a hotly debated context (where it reads like a concession) or in a minority context (where it reads like an extorsion).

Not at all. I think «Canada-as-a-bilingual-country» is a value in itself (I mean, Canada has erected a doughnut chain to the status of national symbol...).

It's good because it is symbolic?

What then is "symbolized" by the fact that while English Canada by and large has official bilingualism foisted upon it, Quebec has opted out of the "bilingual" constitutional protections and is officially unilingual?  [/quote]

Yes, I think it is good because it is symbolic. Countries need to have symbolic capital if they expect people to pay taxes, respect law, create large communities of their own volition rather than through an intellectualized reading of dry legalese.

As to your second question, it symbolizes a failure, that is for sure. The question I repeatedly ask is whether that failure needs to be redressed or not. Because the answer is most of the time «no», I think it marks the death of «a certain idea of Canada».

[Malthus]

Really? You have links to surveys of recently arrived immigrants where they majoritarly declare they wish their kids could go to public english schools?

To repeat: If parents didn't want their kids to go to English Schools --- why the laws?

[dps]

It would seem to me to be pretty self-evident that the apparant insistance of the French-speaking population of Canada that the country as a whole be bi-lingual English/French but that Quebec itself be uni-lingual French is inherently unfair and rather hypocritical.

[Neil]

To me I think it would be absolutely ridiculous if English parents in Wales objected to Welsh-language instruction and demanded their own schools.

Why wouldn't they?  After all, the Welsh language isn't even twenty years old.

[Oexmelin]

I'd argue that all schools in Quebec probably should teach French with English as the standard second language

That's the case. English is taught from 11 y.o. to 19. There is (or there was) also English Second Language - Language of Arts for those who do good in the regular ESL classes.

[Malthus]

The "problem" is making it mandatory, when the parents in point of fact wish their kids to be taught in English and English schools already exist - and they are merely prevented by law from attending them because of some social-engineering policy.

The situation would be comparable to if an entire Gallic school system existed, and everyone unable to "prove" English ethnic identity was required to be educated in Gallic instead of English, even though the parents want their kids to be educated in English and there was no lack of English schools (and some lucky parents were 'eligible' by ancestry to send their kids there).

I don't think the problem is with making things mandatory I think it's with providing special provision for any linguistic group.  I'd argue that all schools in Quebec probably should teach French with English as the standard second language - ideally with something else taught in English (like history or geography) as that helps language learning a lot.  There should be special teachers to help recent immigrants.  But that's it.  And I think Anglo-Canada should be vice versa.

To me I think it would be absolutely ridiculous if English parents in Wales objected to Welsh-language instruction and demanded their own schools.

Any attempt to remove public funding from Ontario's francophone schools would cause a terrible uproar, and rightly so.

As for the "special provision" stuff - I happen to think that the gov't is supposed to serve the people, not the people molded into that cultural shape approved by the gov't. Forcing everyone to speak the same language where they don't wish to is a classic case of tyranny of the majority (defined as two sheep and three wolves voting on what's for dinner  ).

[Zoupa]

Really? You have links to surveys of recently arrived immigrants where they majoritarly declare they wish their kids could go to public english schools?

To repeat: If parents didn't want their kids to go to English Schools --- why the laws?

To clear any ambiguity.

And ever since we've had the laws ---- why the continued immigration?

[Zoupa]

Forcing everyone to speak the same language where they don't wish to is a classic case of tyranny of the majority (defined as two sheep and three wolves voting on what's for dinner  ).

You've yet to show evidence of "forcing". You've yet to show evidence that "they don't wish to".

The argument is purely in your head Malthus.

[Malthus]

Really? You have links to surveys of recently arrived immigrants where they majoritarly declare they wish their kids could go to public english schools?

To repeat: If parents didn't want their kids to go to English Schools --- why the laws?

To clear any ambiguity.

And ever since we've had the laws ---- why the continued immigration?

'The laws have been a sucess as proven by immigration' is surely a bad argument for your side - unless by 'success' you happen to mean 'making Toronto far surpass Montreal'. 

Quebec's inane language laws have done it much harm in a strictly utilitarian sense. I see this very often in interacting with my international clients - if the choice is between Quebec, Ontario or Alberta/BC to launch some new venture (and it often is), all things being equal the language laws are commonly cited as a reason not to choose Quebec.

[Malthus]

Forcing everyone to speak the same language where they don't wish to is a classic case of tyranny of the majority (defined as two sheep and three wolves voting on what's for dinner  ).

You've yet to show evidence of "forcing". You've yet to show evidence that "they don't wish to".

The argument is purely in your head Malthus.

Anyone can read the law.

[Sheilbh]

As for the "special provision" stuff - I happen to think that the gov't is supposed to serve the people, not the people molded into that cultural shape approved by the gov't. Forcing everyone to speak the same language where they don't wish to is a classic case of tyranny of the majority (defined as two sheep and three wolves voting on what's for dinner  ).

Well I agree to some extent as I argued in burkini/pool-gate :p

But I disagree with language.  I would be unhappy to see Bengali or Urdu language schools in England, though I'd have no problem with support for Urdu or Bengali speakers receiving help, or their being Urdu or Bengali language classes in an English school.  If you want a school in a language other than the national, official language then I think you should opt out of the public sector.  Though there should be extensive support for kids  who don't speak the language - such as recent immigrants.

Any attempt to remove public funding from Ontario's francophone schools would cause a terrible uproar, and rightly so.

It would cause an uproar, but I think it'd be right.  I mean their could be some exceptions I could see, for example some sort of Acadian community - and vice versa in Quebec.  But I think that should be the exception not the rule for other communities.

[Zoupa]

Really? You have links to surveys of recently arrived immigrants where they majoritarly declare they wish their kids could go to public english schools?

To repeat: If parents didn't want their kids to go to English Schools --- why the laws?

To clear any ambiguity.

And ever since we've had the laws ---- why the continued immigration?

'The laws have been a sucess as proven by immigration' is surely a bad argument for your side

My point, and you know it, is that immigrants are still coming in droves to Qc, despite our totally unfair nazi language laws. It's like they know their inalienable right to have free schooling in english anywhere in the world will be ruthlessly taken away from them, and yet they still come. Our immigrants are all into S&M.

- unless by 'success' you happen to mean 'making Toronto far surpass Montreal'. 

1967, Mal. Nineteen sixty fucking seven 

Quebec's inane language laws have done it much harm in a strictly utilitarian sense. I see this very often in interacting with my international clients - if the choice is between Quebec, Ontario or Alberta/BC to launch some new venture (and it often is), all things being equal the language laws are commonly cited as a reason not to choose Quebec.

Bummer.

[Grey Fox]

I see that this issue still hasn't lost any of its appeal.

I'm not usually separatist but sometimes you guys make it very hard to not be.

[grumbler]

Considering the author and the tone of the article, I suspect a British accent (which we hear very little of, here) might be to blame and then got blown out of proportion by the author. Or the fact that the doctor in question is an idiot.

The article was written as a "humor" piece, not a news story.  Remember who the author is - a man who makes his living making humor out of overstatement (bless his soul).

[grumbler]

I see that this issue still hasn't lost any of its appeal.

I'm not usually separatist but sometimes you guys make it very hard to not be.

I don't usually cheer on the separatists, but sometimes you guys make it very hard not to.