British citizen creates national uproar in Quebec

[Malthus]

The issue is whether certain citizen's ancestors are to be honoured into perpetuity over other citizens' ancestors.

If you want to put it that way, suit yourself.

But we already had this conversation, and I answered, to put it simply: yes - that's the reason we are under a British Parliamentary System, studying Common Law and Code Civil and not Ukranian Customs or organizing our bureaucracy around Confucean Ideals. Not because of the superiority of the British system, nor because of a conscious choice or perceived utility of any of those institutions. (*cue for Neil's trolling*).

This is not to say that any of these things are or should be unchanging. But Canada is neither a blank page nor an always changing country and in that regard, in a society which looks to «Rule of Law» as a guiding principle, then, yes, the character that helped structure and build these institutions which frame our everyday lives are French and British - not Ukranian or Chinese. I do not think it is outlandish or xenophobic to recognize it.

Countries are products of their history, and in Canada's case, its institutional history is both French and English.

Again: I do not care about utility. Some choices have to be about ideas and values. It is - or should be - about values and the idea of the country we'd like to shape.

So your argument essentially is that it is fine for the society to give one group of people (identified by an arbitrary characteristic) special privileges and/or respect (which involves everybody else being required to devote certain resources - such as study time in this case - to accommodate such privileges) - and at the same time deny such privileges to other groups of people - not because this is efficient, fair or deserved but because this has traditionally been so?

That is a pure definition of aristocracy.

... and it hasn't "traditionally been so". The policy isn't one established hundreds of years ago, but in the 1960s and 1970s.

While there existed some (limited) provisions for laws to be published and federal debates to be held in both languages, "official bilingualsim" as we know and love it today is, as with many other innovations good and bad, a child of the late 60s early 70s, with the "Official Languages Act" passed in 1969, and amendments and other acts passed in the 70s through early 80s (with the Charter of Rights) confirming the same.

Ironically enough, at the same time as Canada was moving to "official bilingualism", Quebec was moving in the other direction - to "official unilingualsim" under French alone, causing repeated confrontations with the Supreme Court of the constitutionality of its attempts to force people to speak, use French, and educate their kids in French whether they want to or not.

1974: The Liberal government of Robert Bourassa enacts The Official Language Act (better-known as "Bill 22"), making Quebec officially unilingual, with French as its only official language. English retains a proscribed legal status.

1977: The Parti Québécois government of René Lévesque enacts the Charter of the French Language (better known as "Bill 101"), banning the use of all languages but French on commercial signs, requiring that French be the language of the workplace, and placing further restrictions on the ability of parents to place their children in English-language schools.

1979: Attorney General of Quebec v. Blaikie (No. 1): The Supreme Court of Canada rules that the provision in Quebec's Charter of the French Language, requiring that all provincial laws to be enacted only in French violates section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867. The Court finds that section 133, which required that all Acts be printed and published in both French and English, applies to all legislation and regulations.

1981: Quebec (Attorney General) v. Blaikie (No. 2): Following an application from the Quebec government to determine whether there exist any exceptions to the requirement, under section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, that all laws be printed and published in English as well as in French, the Supreme Court of Canada rules that the section 133 requirements do not extend to laws enacted by Quebec municipalities.

1982: The government of René Lévesque enacts a law inserting the "Notwithstanding Clause" into all existing Quebec legislation, thereby causing the Charter of Rights to be largely inoperative in Quebec. However, the Lévesque government is unable to prevent section 23 of the Charter from applying to Quebec, as the "Notwithstanding Clause" has been drafted to apply only to certain parts of the Charter, excluding this part.

1984: Attorney General of Quebec v. Quebec Protestant School Boards: The Supreme Court of Canada rules that as a result of the recent adoption of the Charter of Rights, it is no longer constitutional for the Charter of the French Language to deny an education in English to the child of any parent who was educated in English in any Canadian province (provincial law had previously permitted this only for children of parents educated in English in Quebec).

1986: MacDonald v. City of Montreal: The Supreme Court of Canada rules that Section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867 establishes only a negative right to use either official language in the Quebec legislature and its institutions, and does not extend to a right to have municipal services in English as well as French.

1987: The 1982 law inserting the Notwithstanding Clause into all Quebec laws is allowed to lapse by the Liberal government of Robert Bourassa, and all Quebec laws therefore become subject to the Charter of Rights.

1988: Ford v. Quebec (A.G.): The Supreme Court of Canada rules that the commercial sign law provisions of Bill 101, are unconstitutional. The Quebec government reacts by An Act to Amend the Charter of the French Language (better known as "Bill 178"), which re-enacts the unconstitutional provisions under the authority of the "Notwithstanding Clause".

1988: Devine v. Quebec (Attorney General): The Supreme Court of Canada rules that it would be a constitutionally permissible restriction on freedom of speech for the Quebec government to require that French be "markedly predominant" on commercial signs, as long as other languages are not actually banned.

1993: The Quebec National Assembly enacts An Act to Amend the Charter of the French Language (better known as "Bill 86"), amending the sign law to bring it into conformity with the Supreme Court rulings in Ford v. Quebec (A.G.) and Devine v. Quebec (A.G.), by allowing other languages on commercial signs, subject to French being "markedly predominant".

1993: McIntyre v. Canada: A human rights tribunal of the United Nations finds Quebec's restrictions on commercial signs in languages other than French to be an unwarranted restriction, under the terms of articles 2, 19, 26 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on freedom of expression in the pursuit of a legitimate objective (strengthening the position of the French language). The ruling is not enforceable.

1997: An amendment to the Constitution provides for linguistic rather than confessional (Catholic and Protestant) school boards in Quebec.

2002: A.G. of Quebec (Procureur Général) c. John Reid et Frances Muriel Reid: The Quebec Court of Appeal rules that the Quebec government cannot require Quebec-based websites to conform with provincial language law, because the internet falls under federal jurisdiction.

2005: The Supreme Court of Canada rules that the interpretation of major part requirement in the Charter of the French Language, limiting access to English-language public education, violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court does not strike down the law, but presents the province with a set of criteria for bringing the law into conformity with the Charter of Rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_official_languages_policy_in_Canada#Official_languages_policy_and_legislation_relating_to_the_Government_of_Canada

That's a wiki site, but here is the official Quebec language laws on the gov't website.

http://www.olf.gouv.qc.ca/english/charter/

Here are the hoops you have to go through in order to have your kid taught in English:

http://www.olf.gouv.qc.ca/english/regulations/reg_instruction.html

I'm not sure how anyone can justify, at the very same time, supporting "official bilingualism" for English-speaking Canada and "official unilingualism' for Quebec on "traditional" grounds (or indeed on any grounds).

[Josquius]

French is more of a regional language in Canada - a very large country indeed. While there are large French-speaking minorities outside of Quebec (particularly in some parts of Northern Ontario, the Metis in Manitoba, and New Brunswick), in vast parts of Canada hardly anyone speaks it. In Southern Ontario and in British Columbia, Chinese would be considerably more useful than French; in Saskatchewan, Ukranian. Why not have kids speaking these languages (often their own ancestral languages) instead, if there are only resources to teach one additional language?

I dunno.
In part I am quite the hater of French. I wish I could have studied anything else in school. Its a horrible and difficult language with little logic to be found. Its just...argh! I need a time machine to tell my 11 year old self the stuff he's heard about French being easier and better than German is wrong.

But...learning French is more than just learning a language. In learning French you also learn a lot about English I find. So much of our vocabulary draws from there.
It also takes you close to latin without actually wasting your time learning latin.

[The Brain]

As long as they don't claim to be French they can do as they please.

[Malthus]

French is more of a regional language in Canada - a very large country indeed. While there are large French-speaking minorities outside of Quebec (particularly in some parts of Northern Ontario, the Metis in Manitoba, and New Brunswick), in vast parts of Canada hardly anyone speaks it. In Southern Ontario and in British Columbia, Chinese would be considerably more useful than French; in Saskatchewan, Ukranian. Why not have kids speaking these languages (often their own ancestral languages) instead, if there are only resources to teach one additional language?

I dunno.
In part I am quite the hater of French. I wish I could have studied anything else in school. Its a horrible and difficult language with little logic to be found. Its just...argh! I need a time machine to tell my 11 year old self the stuff he's heard about French being easier and better than German is wrong.

But...learning French is more than just learning a language. In learning French you also learn a lot about English I find. So much of our vocabulary draws from there.
It also takes you close to latin without actually wasting your time learning latin.

I have no problems with learning French as a matter of utility. But, as Oex acknowledges (and what is in fact the case) the language policies of this country have noting whatsoever to do with utility - it is a matter of political ideology and nationalist social engineering. That I do have a problem with, and I'm very suprised BB approves of it.

[Zoupa]

Here are the hoops you have to go through in order to have your kid taught in English:

http://www.olf.gouv.qc.ca/english/regulations/reg_instruction.html

No need to make it overly complicated with your lawyer talk. The "hoops" are these:

1- If you have money, put your kid in a private english school.
2- If you don't have money, you can put your kid in a public anglo school if you went to an anglo school yourself or if you're from another province.

ZOMG QC R FROG NAZIS!!!1111one!!

As you can see, the policy is geared towards oversea immigrants. We want them to speak french since, you know, 90% of us are francos.

Don't really get the anglocanuck outrage over this policy. Never have.

[jimmy olsen]

Here are the hoops you have to go through in order to have your kid taught in English:

http://www.olf.gouv.qc.ca/english/regulations/reg_instruction.html

No need to make it overly complicated with your lawyer talk. The "hoops" are these:

1- If you have money, put your kid in a private english school.
2- If you don't have money, you can put your kid in a public anglo school if you went to an anglo school yourself or if you're from another province.

ZOMG QC R FROG NAZIS!!!1111one!!

As you can see, the policy is geared towards oversea immigrants. We want them to speak french since, you know, 90% of us are francos.

Don't really get the anglocanuck outrage over this policy. Never have.

What about immigrants from the USA?

[Malthus]

Here are the hoops you have to go through in order to have your kid taught in English:

http://www.olf.gouv.qc.ca/english/regulations/reg_instruction.html

No need to make it overly complicated with your lawyer talk. The "hoops" are these:

1- If you have money, put your kid in a private english school.
2- If you don't have money, you can put your kid in a public anglo school if you went to an anglo school yourself or if you're from another province.

ZOMG QC R FROG NAZIS!!!1111one!!

As you can see, the policy is geared towards oversea immigrants. We want them to speak french since, you know, 90% of us are francos.

Don't really get the anglocanuck outrage over this policy. Never have.

I can well believe you don't understand it. If you did, you'd share it. 

[Zoupa]

No need to make it overly complicated with your lawyer talk. The "hoops" are these:

1- If you have money, put your kid in a private english school.
2- If you don't have money, you can put your kid in a public anglo school if you went to an anglo school yourself or if you're from another province.

ZOMG QC R FROG NAZIS!!!1111one!!

As you can see, the policy is geared towards oversea immigrants. We want them to speak french since, you know, 90% of us are francos.

Don't really get the anglocanuck outrage over this policy. Never have.

I can well believe you don't understand it. If you did, you'd share it. 

Ha ha.

So what would you have us do exactly?

[Zoupa]

Here are the hoops you have to go through in order to have your kid taught in English:

http://www.olf.gouv.qc.ca/english/regulations/reg_instruction.html

No need to make it overly complicated with your lawyer talk. The "hoops" are these:

1- If you have money, put your kid in a private english school.
2- If you don't have money, you can put your kid in a public anglo school if you went to an anglo school yourself or if you're from another province.

ZOMG QC R FROG NAZIS!!!1111one!!

As you can see, the policy is geared towards oversea immigrants. We want them to speak french since, you know, 90% of us are francos.

Don't really get the anglocanuck outrage over this policy. Never have.

What about immigrants from the USA?

What do you think, timmy?

[Malthus]

Ha ha.

So what would you have us do exactly?

Why not allow people to choose for themselves?

I know it's a radical notion, but it appears to be working well everywhere outside of Quebec so far. 

[Malthus]

What do you think, timmy?

He thinks Americans are special.

Kind of endearing, in a way. 

[Zoupa]

Ha ha.

So what would you have us do exactly?

Why not allow people to choose for themselves?

I know it's a radical notion, but it appears to be working well everywhere outside of Quebec so far.

Like where?

You want the state to provide free public education in every language on the planet? 

[jimmy olsen]

Here are the hoops you have to go through in order to have your kid taught in English:

http://www.olf.gouv.qc.ca/english/regulations/reg_instruction.html

No need to make it overly complicated with your lawyer talk. The "hoops" are these:

1- If you have money, put your kid in a private english school.
2- If you don't have money, you can put your kid in a public anglo school if you went to an anglo school yourself or if you're from another province.

ZOMG QC R FROG NAZIS!!!1111one!!

As you can see, the policy is geared towards oversea immigrants. We want them to speak french since, you know, 90% of us are francos.

Don't really get the anglocanuck outrage over this policy. Never have.

What about immigrants from the USA?

What do you think, timmy?

I assume you force them to rot in Francophone torment.

[garbon]

I assume you force them to rot in Francophone torment.

Presumably they don't have to choose to live there...

[Zoupa]

Here are the hoops you have to go through in order to have your kid taught in English:

http://www.olf.gouv.qc.ca/english/regulations/reg_instruction.html

No need to make it overly complicated with your lawyer talk. The "hoops" are these:

1- If you have money, put your kid in a private english school.
2- If you don't have money, you can put your kid in a public anglo school if you went to an anglo school yourself or if you're from another province.

ZOMG QC R FROG NAZIS!!!1111one!!

As you can see, the policy is geared towards oversea immigrants. We want them to speak french since, you know, 90% of us are francos.

Don't really get the anglocanuck outrage over this policy. Never have.

What about immigrants from the USA?

What do you think, timmy?

I assume you force them to rot in Francophone torment.

hmm, no. You just need money 

It's funny how you anglophones think. Go to Germany and ask for free public education in english. You wouldn't want your kids to rot in germanophone torment