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

[ulmont]

Some actions have public consequences - such as garbage collection. They generally involve public, social funding. Thus the public, through politicians, has an interest in the matter, and even in private behaviour that affects the matter - such as recycling.

The disappearance of French would seem to be a public consequence.

Hence the rational reaction of "mind yer own business" to governmental attempts to control it, which doesn't really work for garbage collection.

There's quite a large gap between crazy canuck's description of the proposal and viper's.  In viper's quote, there was no attempt at control, but pure exhortation of desired behavior.

[Barrister]

Pretty sure they're not talking about private conversations.

What other sort of conversation does one typically hold in a Chinese restaurant? 

The conversations with the waiter?

And in your mind, that's not a "private" conversation? 

No.  It's a commercial conversation. 

[Berkut]

Pretty sure they're not talking about private conversations.

What other sort of conversation does one typically hold in a Chinese restaurant? 

The conversations with the waiter?

And in your mind, that's not a "private" conversation? 

No.  It's a commercial conversation. 

Commercial conversations cannot be private?

Are we seriously debating whether two people should be allowed to converse in a language of their mutual choice when it does not effect anyone else in any way whatsoever?

I think this argument has very clearly jumped the shark. When it becomes so absurd as to suggest that two people should be forced (or even "encouraged") to speak in a particular language even if neither of them wants to...

[The Brain]

I have never heard of a commercial conversation. Is that a Canadian law thing?

[Berkut]

I have never heard of a commercial conversation. Is that a Canadian law thing?

Must be. I thought we were talking about private vice public, but apparently there is another category...

[ulmont]

I think this argument has very clearly jumped the shark. When it becomes so absurd as to suggest that two people should be forced (or even "encouraged") to speak in a particular language even if neither of them wants to...

I tend to agree that when people start saying that politicians can't call for desired behavior the shark has been jumped, yes.

[Barrister]

Pretty sure they're not talking about private conversations.

What other sort of conversation does one typically hold in a Chinese restaurant? 

The conversations with the waiter?

And in your mind, that's not a "private" conversation? 

No.  It's a commercial conversation. 

Commercial conversations cannot be private?

Are we seriously debating whether two people should be allowed to converse in a language of their mutual choice when it does not effect anyone else in any way whatsoever?

Our Quebecois posters can correct me if I'm wrong, but it isn't that two people engaged in commerce can not speak in any language - but rather that the business must be able to provide service in French.

And it does effect others.  It effects the "French" nature of the province.  The more conversations in English, the less French is spoken.

[Oexmelin]

There's quite a large gap between crazy canuck's description of the proposal and viper's.  In viper's quote, there was no attempt at control, but pure exhortation of desired behavior.

Legault said:

a) That the law stipulates customers have the right to be served in French. Many places now hire unilingual anglophone employees because they know they can get away with it. This leads many customers who know English to switch to English in the interest of expediency rather than complain to have the law enforced.

b) And therefore he stated that it would be nice if francophones didn't switch automatically to English in such circumstances.

[viper37]

The flaw, of course, is that a lot of Mandarin speakers actually would automatically switch to Mandarin if they heard it on entering a Chinese restaurant.

it's not about anglophones speaking to one another in their language.  It's about francophones using English by default instead of using French.  Emphasize personal responsibility instead of bitching at the government not doing its work.

[Barrister]

I have never heard of a commercial conversation. Is that a Canadian law thing?

Must be. I thought we were talking about private vice public, but apparently there is another category...

This is a little outside my area of expertise, but the SCC has recognized that commercial speech is given somewhat less deference than other kinds of speech.  Thus there are more restrictions on advertising and packaging than would otherwise be allowed.

[Oexmelin]

Our Quebecois posters can correct me if I'm wrong, but it isn't that two people engaged in commerce can not speak in any language - but rather that the business must be able to provide service in French.

That's exactly it.

I am shocked, shocked, that the most unfavourable spin has been given to this story.

[viper37]

My first reaction to that - in what possible way is it Legault's business, or any politico's business, what *I* (or anyone) choose to speak in a Chinese restaurant, or any other private interaction I or any other person choose to have?

Surely "butt out and mind yer own business" is the only rational response to such an importunity?

Tell me Malthus, if I believed the Elders of Sion to be an historical, truthful document, what could you tell me to convince me that I was wrong?   

You still believe there's a language police taking measurements of signs and jailing people for not speaking French.  What is it I can say to you to convince you that you are wrong and see this whole issue with the distorted eyes of the anti-French movement of the old British Empire?
Frankly, I'm at loss.  It's like you're trying on purpose to distort the facts.  It's like you truly want to believe that Quebec is a Nazi State that will jail English speakers on sight.

So tell me, why should I bother answering this?  Would you answer me if I tought Jews existed only to control the world through secret manipulation?

[viper37]

b) And therefore he stated that it would be nice if francophones didn't switch automatically to English in such circumstances.

apparently, lots of francophone staff will use English even when speaking to francophone clients, only to swtich back to French when talking to one another.  Seems to be a Montreal problem.

[viper37]

Having been to Quebec, I just speak English. And if I get a funny look, I repeat it REAL LOUD AND SLOW.

it's the best way to make them understand you're Amercain

Then get run over by insane Montreal drivers.

everybody is insane in Montreal, not just the drivers

[Malthus]

The disappearance of French would seem to be a public consequence.

Anything can be made a "public consequence" by making it symbolic of cultural erosion.

Chosing to eat at McDonalds = "disappearance of our national culture" = "public consequence". Therefore, the government has an interest in interfering with one's choice to eat at McDonalds.

Playing videogames = "erosion of our health national pastimes" = "public coinsequence". Therefore, the government has an interest in interfering with one's choice to play videogames.

The problem with this reasoning, of course, is that there is nothing it *cannot* apply to, there is nothing that is not potentially of "public consequence" to somebody.

There's quite a large gap between crazy canuck's description of the proposal and viper's.  In viper's quote, there was no attempt at control, but pure exhortation of desired behavior.

So far, the actual details of what is proposed aren't clear. Nonetheless, even assuming it is nothing more than exhortation, the reasonable response is the same: "mind yer own business". Same as if some politico wanted to "publicly exhort" people to refrain from using the internet because it makes you stupid or erodes your culture.