Canada to firmly re-assess its status as a British colony

[garbon]

Get over it? 

That is the apology of political apathy.

Actually it's more like giving into reality - with the reality, as unpalatable as it might be, that English is dominant and that setting up expectations that French will be as widely available only serves to breed discontentment.

[Barrister]

But it's not dominance of French people over anglos.  It's dominance of the French language over the English language.

That's a distinction without a difference, as the minority of anglos in Quebec are identified by linguistic affiliation, not by genetics.

It's the equivalent of saying 'being legally required to wear a cross is not the dominance of Christians over Jews, Muslims and other people, it's the dominance of Christianity over other religions'.

But I'd be fine if a country (say a Euro country with an official religion) wanted to take steps to ensure the Christian identity of their nation, as long as minority religions were still free to practice their own religion.  Now that probably doesn't include forcing people to wear crosses, but you get the idea.

Surely in this global era the notion that people want to take steps to preserve their cultural identity, whether it include language, religion, certain practices, etc. isn't that hard to believe?

[Oexmelin]

Actually it's more like giving into reality - with the reality, as unpalatable as it might be, that English is dominant and that setting up expectations that French will be as widely available only serves to breed discontentment.

That's basically what I said: the apology of apathy - or resignation, if you will. This is the limited equivalent of saying "the world is unjust: deal with it".

[Razgovory]

It's because it's not about having French available - it's about making French the predominate language in Quebec.

So in other words, I agree with you.  It's not about utility.  It is a statement of importance.  But why is that such a terrible thing?

Cause it's silly and counterproductive?  Chauvinism is not a good reason to make laws.  This thread started not about French language but because of a name change in the military.  The Francophones seemed terribly distressed by this.  The thread meandered around to frivolous lawsuits, paintings and sign laws but the root cause is the same, I think.  I suspect the French speaking Canadians are deeply offended that the rest of Canada has not seen the innate superiority of the French language and refused to stop speaking the plebeian language of English.  The words "culture" and "Hypocrites" have been thrown around here, but the hypocrites I see are the Francophones.  They demand French have equal standing in the rest of Canada and are willing to sue for hefty amounts of money when services are not provided in French, but have no problem relegating other languages to second class status in Quebec.  This suggest to me, that the calls for equal services is a fig leaf.  There is no real interest in equality, just the promotion of French language in culture.  When a Francophone goes on about Canada not having a culture of it's own, I think what he means is that it doesn't have a French culture.  An English based culture is apparently not a real culture.

Perhaps I'm wrong.  I'm an outsider, who has no dog in this fight.  I am unimpressed by people going on about the "Culture War" in the US.  I see little reason to promote  one culture over another.  I don't care for efforts to promote the superiority of English or Christianity in the US (at least by the government), and I don't care for efforts to alter benign behavior in minorities or ever majorities.  Hell, I have no problem making small and benign exceptions for people of other culture.  I do oppose using the laws to enforce what ever cultural prejudices you happen to have.  I see that as a poor use of the law.

[Barrister]

But companies not willing to service your area is something that everyone, regardless of language, has experienced.

Indeed - but that's not quite the same - the Corel example I picked because they are located in Ottawa - and I experienced it recently. I do not expect French service from foreign and distant companies - and yet, often I receive it (i.e., Nokia, Chase Manhattan). It is from companies doing business in Quebec (but often having marketing / customer services / direction elsewhere) - or sometimes, the Federal government - that I expect a minimum and often do not even get that.

So it boils down to you sometimes get better service from successful multinationals, than you do from a failing company next door.

Again, this is not terribly unusual.  I can recall how people moaned about how Walmart would kill all the small local businesses - yet people wound up shopping at Walmart because their price, selection and even level of service were far superior to the local business.

As mentioned, this is not unique to the French language or Quebec.

[Malthus]

But it's not dominance of French people over anglos.  It's dominance of the French language over the English language.

That's a distinction without a difference, as the minority of anglos in Quebec are identified by linguistic affiliation, not by genetics.

It's the equivalent of saying 'being legally required to wear a cross is not the dominance of Christians over Jews, Muslims and other people, it's the dominance of Christianity over other religions'.

But I'd be fine if a country (say a Euro country with an official religion) wanted to take steps to ensure the Christian identity of their nation, as long as minority religions were still free to practice their own religion.  Now that probably doesn't include forcing people to wear crosses, but you get the idea.

Surely in this global era the notion that people want to take steps to preserve their cultural identity, whether it include language, religion, certain practices, etc. isn't that hard to believe?

Of course it isn't hard to believe. The world is full of Grallons, and Slargoses.

I do object - and I always will - to the notion that because the notion people wish to preserve their cultural, linguistic, religious, or racial majority by legally coercing others is understandable, it should therefore be approved of.

To my mind, a democratic government has no business supporting one group of citizens against another because of their identity. Because the tyranny of the majority is so easy to fall into, it should be resisted the more. 

[garbon]

Actually it's more like giving into reality - with the reality, as unpalatable as it might be, that English is dominant and that setting up expectations that French will be as widely available only serves to breed discontentment.

That's basically what I said: the apology of apathy - or resignation, if you will. This is the limited equivalent of saying "the world is unjust: deal with it".

Except that I'm not championing political apathy - but really just saying that one should pick battles they can win.  I'm not sure that it is a battle that can be won, if only because you're fighting against a horde of people who don't care about the issue. 

I know that Canada is different from the US, but in my own life, while I appreciate signage/items/services that are both in Spanish and English - it doesn't occur to be to be annoyed when a spanish language option isn't available.  I'm largely a monolingual English speaker and so on a day-to-day basis, I don't really feel any concern over situations where only the English is available. It simply doesn't occur to me as I'm not disadvantaged. 

The closest example I could have any connection with - is when I went to the Prado and while a great many of the paintings had English text, there were many untranslated ones. Of course that was personally somewhat of a nuisance but the context is very different as I'd be outright boorish to expect Spain to put up signs in English - which differs greatly from the situation in Canada.

[Razgovory]

Actually it's more like giving into reality - with the reality, as unpalatable as it might be, that English is dominant and that setting up expectations that French will be as widely available only serves to breed discontentment.

That's basically what I said: the apology of apathy - or resignation, if you will. This is the limited equivalent of saying "the world is unjust: deal with it".

What is your alternative?  Btw, are all the First Nation languages as promoted as French?  Can I get a Cree trial anywhere in Canada?  Can I sue half a million bucks if I'm not served in Cree?

[Barrister]

Of course it isn't hard to believe. The world is full of Grallons, and Slargoses.

I do object - and I always will - to the notion that because the notion people wish to preserve their cultural, linguistic, religious, or racial majority by legally coercing others is understandable, it should therefore be approved of.

To my mind, a democratic government has no business supporting one group of citizens against another because of their identity. Because the tyranny of the majority is so easy to fall into, it should be resisted the more.

One hardly needs to agree with Grallon or Slargos to believe that unique local cultures, traditions, and yes languages, help make the world a more interesting place and deserve to be protected.

I mean I suppose it may be inevitable that one day we'll all be eating identical Big Macs, listening to intechangeable pop music, speaking Anglo-Cantonese, but that doesn't mean we should welcome it.

You do know that our Canadian government goes to great lengths to try and promote and protect a unique Canadian identity?  Are you opposed to that?

And to bring it full circle, the reason I can understand what our Quebecois friends are going through is the same reason I loved the opening post - I saw it as an effort to promote that unique Canadian identity to bring back the RCAF and RCN, and understand why Quebec wants to promote their own sense of identity.

[garbon]

I mean I suppose it may be inevitable that one day we'll all be eating identical Big Macs, listening to intechangeable pop music, speaking Anglo-Cantonese, but that doesn't mean we should welcome it.

I like how whenever anyone chooses to attack the side effects of globalization, they always paint it with the lowest common denominator of culture items.

Yes, we'll be reduced to insipid pop music and big macs.

[Valmy]

The Academie is tasked with the preservation of purity of the French language.  This implies a superior position of French compared to other languages which would presumably make French impure.  The motive seems very similar, to keep the French language in a state of superiority to other languages.

Incidentally, you made an argument for not preserving French in Canada, as you pointed out it is "Historically destructive".

Indeed.  If Canada was a 19th century European nation state trying to develop itself I would think stamping out French would be a good idea.  Not doing so would probably lead to war and strife.  And, to some extent, this was tried in Canada (which seems to be a source of Quebec's language paranoia).  But this is the 21st century and Canada is not a European style nation state.

Yes France has a 17th century institution whose job it is to regulate the French language...heck to a large extent it created the French language.  It was useful in creating modern France as a unified state.  It is a tad conservative and full of itself.  I am not sure how this compares to Quebec's own feelings.

[Barrister]

Btw, are all the First Nation languages as promoted as French?  Can I get a Cree trial anywhere in Canada?  Can I sue half a million bucks if I'm not served in Cree?

Most native languages are virtually dead, spoken by only a few dozen elders.

Cree is one of the few that has much of a chance of surviving.  In part it is merely because Cree was one of the largest single FN languages it has the largest number of speakers, so it might yet survive.  The use of Cree may be promoted by individual FN governments, but not by the Federal or Provincial governments.

There is one interesting exception though - Inuktitut.  Inuktitut is the official language of Nunavut, and its use is heavily promoted.  Sadly there are not enough (or hardly any) Inuktitut speaking lawyers or judges so trials are conducted in English - but there is simultaneous English-Inuktitut translation in every courtroom.

[Barrister]

I mean I suppose it may be inevitable that one day we'll all be eating identical Big Macs, listening to intechangeable pop music, speaking Anglo-Cantonese, but that doesn't mean we should welcome it.

I like how whenever anyone chooses to attack the side effects of globalization, they always paint it with the lowest common denominator of culture items.

Yes, we'll be reduced to insipid pop music and big macs.

Well, won't we?

I don't see a lot to suggest otherwise.  It's the lowest common denomitaor pop culture that is spreading across the globe.

[viper37]

To my mind, a democratic government has no business supporting one group of citizens against another because of their identity. Because the tyranny of the majority is so easy to fall into, it should be resisted the more.

like, oh say, forbidding publicly french schools?  French education in Manitoba is available only since the late 90s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manitoba_Schools_Question
Easy then to say there's not enough French population to justify the existence of French services.

Also very easy to talk about coercition when there's a cultural firewall around Canada.
I can't just subscribe to HBO, since it's an American channel.  I need to subscribe to most channels available first.  Same goes with à la carte channels, i need an equivalent number of canadian channels before subscribing to american channels.
Even though Canadian networks mostly air american content.

I can't watch the Superbowl with the original ads, it's forbidden to me.  Talk about coercition!

Back in the 50s, no one could get a decent job if not speaking english.  Even today, outside of Quebec, preference is given to an incompetent english speaker rather than a competent French Canadian (see the TSX group debacle).  When a Québécois was near buying the Canadian Pacific, the Federal government intervene to put a stop to it.  But that's not coercition...

Bottom line: when English Canada feels threatened of something, they react no different than Quebec did to protect its culture.

[Valmy]

Well, won't we?

I don't see a lot to suggest otherwise.  It's the lowest common denomitaor pop culture that is spreading across the globe.

Well it is the largest market