British citizen creates national uproar in Quebec

[Valmy]

Any excuse to get wasted on margaritas and tequila shots?

That is what we in Texas call Friday.

[Grallon]

...

because theoretical and practical bilinguality leads to effective monolinguality over time.
I'll again use my own country as an example: when belgium was formed both dutch and french were officially considered equal. The reality however, was that dutch wasn't used in and even shunned by government due to the fact that everyone who was someone in Belgium spoke french. The result: no higher education in Dutch, no courts in Dutch, no constitution in Dutch, no government in Dutch, "et pour les flamans la même chose".

In such situations bilinguality is percieved as equal to de facto monolinguality.  While the political situation in Quebec isn't as dire as the flemish situation even 50 years ago I'm guessing the feeling remains the same. For if Quebec was made totally bilingual why would anyone entering the place bother with the French? Even if they entered to spend the rest of their lives there.  Very different from California cause everyone knows the migrants will eventually assimilate into english.

That is the core of it.  The attraction of english is already so strong because of the N-A demographics that there's no justification to fragilise french any further by allowing full bilinguism across the board.  Especially considering the increase in the influx of immigrants who will 'naturally' drift towards english since english is present in one form or another around the world.

As for Malthus' latest spurious argument, I must dreaming!  As if anyone was deprived of fundamental rights by being asked, far too nicely IMO, to respect the majority of the inhabitants of this country!  In this case as in others, collective rights trumps individual ones.




G.

[Berkut]

Quebec is a country?

[grumbler]

As for Malthus' latest spurious argument, I must dreaming!  As if anyone was deprived of fundamental rights by being asked, far too nicely IMO, to respect the majority of the inhabitants of this country!  In this case as in others, collective rights trumps individual ones.

I this captures the nub of the difference.  In the British tradition, there is no such animal as "group rights" - the very idea is absurd.  Clearly, the French tradition (at least as maintained in Canada) is not about the kinds of human rights that the rest of the western world has evolved to, but is instead about the rights of the collective.  Marx used to talk about the rights of the collective all the time.

So, Gral et al, you guys simply won't be able to explain why you were all present in Canada before the Anglos, because outside Quebec we don't think of ourselves as just a part of the group, but as individuals.  It is more than just a difference between French and English (the French in France do not talk much about the rights of the collective, for instance).  I, for one, cannot even accept that such a stand is logical, let alone correct, so you will never be able to convince me that Zoupa was in Canada before the British arrived, no matter how hard you try.  It simply does not compute in my world-view.  That doesn't make it wrong, of course.  I have the same problem with the highly religious, who may also be correct even though I cannot accept their claims as logically valid.

[garbon]

The German immigrants had entire towns and regions where not a single word of English was seen or heard.  They came around eventually.

Many of the people in my district are not new to the country...and it is corporations who put up the Spanish billboards.

[garbon]

Why the hell do people celebrate Cinco de Mayo in this country?

Any excuse to get wasted on margaritas and tequila shots?

[Valmy]

Collective rights, like the horrible and infamous right to self-determination, are an incredibly destructive concept.  Individual rights are what is important. If enough individuals agree that a certain group should have certain privledges that is one thing, but they certainly should never be considered rights.  No group has a right to anything.

[Berkut]

As if anyone was deprived of fundamental rights by being asked, far too nicely IMO, to respect the majority of the inhabitants of this country! 

G.

Actually, I think when a majority decides to get together and stomp on the rights of a minority is in fact the exact circumstance when individual rights are in the most danger.

The idea that the will of the collective a-priori trumps the rights of the individual must be some kind of Canadian thing.

[Valmy]

Many of the people in my district are not new to the country...and it is corporations who put up the Spanish billboards.

What does that have to do with it?  The German communities in the US lasted for almost 100 years.

[garbon]

That is the core of it.  The attraction of english is already so strong because of the N-A demographics that there's no justification to fragilise french any further by allowing full bilinguism across the board.  Especially considering the increase in the influx of immigrants who will 'naturally' drift towards english since english is present in one form or another around the world.

If that's the case, then isn't this quest sort of akin to using a thimble to pitch water out of a sinking ship? Perhaps in a few generations the demographics will have changed enough that French is still thrown out.

[Valmy]

If that's the case, then isn't this quest sort of akin to using a thimble to pitch water out of a sinking ship? Perhaps in a few generations the demographics will have changed enough that French is still thrown out.

The French Canadians are doing the 'surrender of the cradle' right now anyway.

[garbon]

What does that have to do with it?  The German communities in the US lasted for almost 100 years.

And this is the 21st century.

Note, many of the people in my neighborhood also speak English...I'm not sure why they would suddenly decide to throw out Spanish.

[Malthus]

As for Malthus' latest spurious argument, I must dreaming!  As if anyone was deprived of fundamental rights by being asked, far too nicely IMO, to respect the majority of the inhabitants of this country!  In this case as in others, collective rights trumps individual ones.




G.

Wait ... aren't Anglos the "majority of the inhabitants of this country"? By your logic, their "rights" trump yours, and you ought to show "respect" to them by speaking English. 

Not that I agree with that logic of course. To my mind, "rights" are something individuals have.

[Valmy]

What does that have to do with it?  The German communities in the US lasted for almost 100 years.

And this is the 21st century.

Note, many of the people in my neighborhood also speak English...I'm not sure why they would suddenly decide to throw out Spanish.

Ok then they are already assimilating their own way.  There is no rule that says you have to completely not speak your native language to join the club or somehow assimilate borg like into the WASP collective.

Again in the past sometimes this process took 3 or 4 generations or longer.

I am not sure the relevence of the 21st century barb....but um consider me injured.

[HVC]

That is the core of it.  The attraction of english is already so strong because of the N-A demographics that there's no justification to fragilise french any further by allowing full bilinguism across the board.  Especially considering the increase in the influx of immigrants who will 'naturally' drift towards english since english is present in one form or another around the world.

As for Malthus' latest spurious argument, I must dreaming!  As if anyone was deprived of fundamental rights by being asked, far too nicely IMO, to respect the majority of the inhabitants of this country!  In this case as in others, collective rights trumps individual ones.




G.

Co the collective rights of the majority of francaphones in  quebec should trump the individual rights of theanglos and immigrants in quebec, while at the same time the collective right of the anglo majority in canada should be ignored in favour of the indivdual right of the minority of quebec within the federation?