British citizen creates national uproar in Quebec

[Oexmelin]

However, as you well know, official bilingualism is a modern innovation, younger in point of fact than I am: it came into effect in the 1970s. Prior to that, it was French "institutions" that were maintained in Quebec and (partly) New Brunswick, but certainly not in most of English Canada. It isn't 'traditional'. Indeed, it was the subject of some injustice to those French-speaking communities outside of Quebec that they were *not* "traditionally" accomodated. 

I beg to differ. The bilingualism debate is as old as Canada and therefore not quite radical. It started in 1792. It is the first debate in «Canadian» parliamentary history: what should be the language of the debates in the Assembly ? What should be the language of criminal trials ? Many answers were provided along the years, each contributing to the current levels of expectations and «Canadian» identity.

That is the inherent tension at the heart of it all. Do we take a narrow view that Canada is a bilingual country inasmuch as it has a Province whose rights are guaranteed by the Constitution within its folds ? Or is this representative of something greater ? (Founding Peoples and all that). Unless you want to segregate Quebec history into a single province's own history, you are forced to take into account that all these debates that took place in the past, surrounding the Confederations were forced to take into account the fact that there was a sizeable minority of the country's population that spoke French.

If we take the narrow, legalistic view, of course, we will find that Canada is a country as far as the Constitution makes it, no more no less. I think that tends to limit the meaning of whatever an independant Canada is supposed to be, a collection of individuals united by institutions that happened to be there for no reason.

I never got why this assertion of Canada-as-a-bilingual-country is supposed to reflect badly or unfairly upon any other culture within the country. Are German-Americans protesting because they are studying the Pilgrims or the Natives and not the history of Saxony or Prussia ? Are they complaining that they are unfairly focusing upon people that are not part of their ancestors, in a language that was not that of their ancestors ? That has nothing to do with the worth of their ancestor's culture, nor with the worth of their contribution but with the national identity of the US.

As for "ideals" and "values", what exact ideals and values are being honoured or supported by this policy, other than that some ancestries are more important than others? That the French people help to import the rule of law to a savage continent, and thus we should all attempt to learn it? I don't agree with such essentialism

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...).

This is why I said you are much more of a presentist than I am. I mean, surely the democratic values of Canada could be served by any other legal or political system of the Western World. Why are we clingning to the British one ? Is it because British people helped import the rule of law to a savage continent that we should all attempt to work within it ? You obviously are turning this argument into a imperial caricature so that no one could agree with it, but it the end, it empties the country Canada of any heritage save the one that is supposed to be represented here and now, through laws and personal preferences. Or rather, this is a way in which the question is never adressed. Why should it be ? Things are because they are - because our legal system and demographic pressures ensures conformity with past traditions, but no one asks where these traditions are coming from. Even the multiculturalism the superiority of which you proclaim is a much younger institution that you project backwards, as if all past choices were the result of perfect individual preferences.

We've succeeded at providing an ex post facto legal-rational explanation for our democratic system but outside of this there are no reasons why we do any of the *other* stuff we do. What makes Canada Canada ? What makes the US the US if all institutions are grounded into the same basic values ? In this scheme, culture becomes the fluff, the superfluous that is artificially grafted upon the basics, the important, the fundamental. I don't suscribe to this reading.

[Zoupa]

C'est peine perdue, l'ami.

[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.

Like where?

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

No, only those language or cultural groups which have a sufficient numbers of parents wanting them.

In Ontario, for historic reasons, this has always been either English or French (or English or French Catholic). As far as I'm aware, the gov't doesn't force parents to pick the English one unless they can meet the right criteria.

There is, however, no good reason why funding should only go to these particular cultural groups, as opposed to any other (for example, why there should exist a seperate public Catholic education, but not a seperate public Jewish education). There does exist a Jewish school system, but it is privately funded.

[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? 

No, only those language or cultural groups which have a sufficient numbers of parents wanting them.

In Ontario, for historic reasons, this has always been either English or French (or English or French Catholic). As far as I'm aware, the gov't doesn't force parents to pick the English one unless they can meet the right criteria.

There is, however, no good reason why funding should only go to these particular cultural groups, as opposed to any other (for example, why there should exist a seperate public Catholic education, but not a seperate public Jewish education). There does exist a Jewish school system, but it is privately funded.

What's sufficient numbers?

As i've explained above, there is a publicly funded anglophone school network in qc. For "historic" reasons, as you say, we allowed, in our magnanimity, old anglos to keep their schools :zoupa:

Nobody is "forcing" anyone to go to any school. The criteria is listed above. They are not unreasonable.

Qc is unilingual francophone. I know it's hard to accept, but it's a fact. It's always been a fact, for four hundred years. I certainly don't subscribe to the multicultural aspect that you're so in love with (i'm a real frog, remember? School is a place for education AND integration into society).

I also disagree with public funding of any kind for "confesionnal" or religious schools. That's just dumb imo.

[Malthus]

I beg to differ. The bilingualism debate is as old as Canada and therefore not quite radical. It started in 1792. It is the first debate in «Canadian» parliamentary history: what should be the language of the debates in the Assembly ? What should be the language of criminal trials ? Many answers were provided along the years, each contributing to the current levels of expectations and «Canadian» identity.

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.

That is the inherent tension at the heart of it all. Do we take a narrow view that Canada is a bilingual country inasmuch as it has a Province whose rights are guaranteed by the Constitution within its folds ? Or is this representative of something greater ? (Founding Peoples and all that). Unless you want to segregate Quebec history into a single province's own history, you are forced to take into account that all these debates that took place in the past, surrounding the Confederations were forced to take into account the fact that there was a sizeable minority of the country's population that spoke French.

I see no problem with taking the "narrow view". Are we to take the narrow view that Canada was historically formed in the territories of the First Nations, or should we take the greater view and honour their memory eternally by making our children learn ... Algonkian?

If we take the narrow, legalistic view, of course, we will find that Canada is a country as far as the Constitution makes it, no more no less. I think that tends to limit the meaning of whatever an independant Canada is supposed to be, a collection of individuals united by institutions that happened to be there for no reason.

I never got why this assertion of Canada-as-a-bilingual-country is supposed to reflect badly or unfairly upon any other culture within the country. Are German-Americans protesting because they are studying the Pilgrims or the Natives and not the history of Saxony or Prussia ? Are they complaining that they are unfairly focusing upon people that are not part of their ancestors, in a language that was not that of their ancestors ? That has nothing to do with the worth of their ancestor's culture, nor with the worth of their contribution but with the national identity of the US.

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

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? 

This is why I said you are much more of a presentist than I am. I mean, surely the democratic values of Canada could be served by any other legal or political system of the Western World. Why are we clingning to the British one ? Is it because British people helped import the rule of law to a savage continent that we should all attempt to work within it ? You obviously are turning this argument into a imperial caricature so that no one could agree with it, but it the end, it empties the country Canada of any heritage save the one that is supposed to be represented here and now, through laws and personal preferences. Or rather, this is a way in which the question is never adressed. Why should it be ? Things are because they are - because our legal system and demographic pressures ensures conformity with past traditions, but no one asks where these traditions are coming from. Even the multiculturalism the superiority of which you proclaim is a much younger institution that you project backwards, as if all past choices were the result of perfect individual preferences.

Again, this is a perfectly valid argument for traditionalist conservatism. Again, it is not applicaple to a social policy as young as official bilingualism, which is a radical and not conservative measure. Unlike your chosen example of the common law, it did not develop organically.

If I was to choose between two visions - the bilingual one and the multicultural one - I'd unhesitatingly choose the latter. Official bilingualism has proven as futile as Canute attempting to hold back the waves.

We've succeeded at providing an ex post facto legal-rational explanation for our democratic system but outside of this there are no reasons why we do any of the *other* stuff we do. What makes Canada Canada ? What makes the US the US if all institutions are grounded into the same basic values ? In this scheme, culture becomes the fluff, the superfluous that is artificially grafted upon the basics, the important, the fundamental. I don't suscribe to this reading.

We don't disagree about the importance of culture. Where we disagree is on whose should be perpetuated. In my opinion, it should be a matter of bottom-up choice, not top-down fiat.

[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.

Like where?

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

No, only those language or cultural groups which have a sufficient numbers of parents wanting them.

In Ontario, for historic reasons, this has always been either English or French (or English or French Catholic). As far as I'm aware, the gov't doesn't force parents to pick the English one unless they can meet the right criteria.

There is, however, no good reason why funding should only go to these particular cultural groups, as opposed to any other (for example, why there should exist a seperate public Catholic education, but not a seperate public Jewish education). There does exist a Jewish school system, but it is privately funded.

What's sufficient numbers?

As i've explained above, there is a publicly funded anglophone school network in qc. For "historic" reasons, as you say, we allowed, in our magnanimity, old anglos to keep their schools :zoupa:

Nobody is "forcing" anyone to go to any school. The criteria is listed above. They are not unreasonable.

Qc is unilingual francophone. I know it's hard to accept, but it's a fact. It's always been a fact, for four hundred years. I certainly don't subscribe to the multicultural aspect that you're so in love with (i'm a real frog, remember? School is a place for education AND integration into society).

I also disagree with public funding of any kind for "confesionnal" or religious schools. That's just dumb imo.

Sufficient to justify hiring teachers to teach on the public dime.

I don't disagree with you on the bit about "confessional" schools, I merely point out that if one group has 'em funded, it is unfair not to fund others - if the numbers justify it of course.

I disagree with this part:

Nobody is "forcing" anyone to go to any school.

... as demonstratably untrue. If you are the child of immigrants, you are indeed "forced" into one school system and not the other.

[Zoupa]

No. You can choose the private english school.

I can see your point of view from your responses to Oex and I. I don't know why you care though. Nobody's rights are being trampled. Anglos can still go to anglo schools.

New immigrants can go to public french or private english. They're not complaining btw, the anglo ROC is always the one bringing it up. It's not like they're not aware before landing that qc is francophone. I'm an immigrant, I've seen the questionnaires, forms and brochures. Nobody feels cheated once they arrive. They know the deal and they still come. We don't have an immigration shortage.

You're fighting for the "right" of people perfectly fine with the system in place 

[Zoupa]

And btw your thing about "it should be a matter of bottom-up choice, not top-down fiat" is real easy to say when you perfectly well know that close to 100% of folks would choose anglophone schooling in your province/country, qc excluded.

When we're our own independant state, we'll go with that approach too  Geez I wonder what the overwhlemingly francophone population will choose...

[Sheilbh]

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

Choose which language their children's school is in?  Is that really that common in Anglo Canada?

[Razgovory]

Huh, we have people with similar ideas in out country.  Typically we call them "Dumbasses".  Is there a french word for that?

[DontSayBanana]

We don't do exclusively Spanish public education here in the states, but we do have modified "ESL" (English as a Second Language) programs for students who are not native speakers. Would Quebec have something similar in the public school system?

Also, whether or not people are complaining doesn't mean it's not a violation of rights- it's putting cultural and financial obstacles in the way of education for students who are not native speakers of French. It might be considered a non-issue if the separatists got their way and Quebec was a separate nation, but it's part of a larger nation that's predominantly English-speaking, so the obstacle is really inexcusable.

[Sheilbh]

... as demonstratably untrue. If you are the child of immigrants, you are indeed "forced" into one school system and not the other.

If you go to a school in this country and you're an immigrant then your children will be taught in English.  If there's sufficient numbers a team of specialists in your language may be hired by the school but the language of instruction won't change.

The only exception to that are the people who choose to opt out of our public system.  For example the Lycee Charles de Gaulle, international schools and European schools.

What's so bad about going to a Francophone school when you're from an Anglo home?  I don't understand the problem.

[Neil]

I assume you force them to rot in Francophone torment.

Trick question.  There's no reason for an American to move to Quebec.  They made the choice that they were going to be hostile to international business with their language laws.

In a way, the preeminance of Toronto and Ontario is entirely the fault of the bigots of Quebec.

[Razgovory]

What's so bad about going to a Francophone school when you're from an Anglo home?  I don't understand the problem.

Can't understand what the teacher is saying.

[Admiral Yi]

Previously I was opposed but now I'm inclined to agree with the Frogs.