Language Police to Force Children to Speak French During Recess

[Malthus]

Not anymore than the suggestion that those objecting to this policy are "sit[ting] around worried what some local school board someplace does."

Is that an outrageous suggestion?  I mean the school boards only have so much power to really be coercive.

School boards doing silly things are often news. Think of how much we in Canada have heard about US school boards requiring Creationism be taught, or banning kids from carrying Asprin. That affects my life not at all - with the exception that it indicates, to some extent, the general tenor of the society that approves of such activities.

[crazy canuck]

I am unaware of anything like a "school pledge" which requires enforcement through legislation.

It's not legislation. It's a school board internal policy.

The only reason this is an issue is because the policy is backed by the coercive power of Bill 101.  If not for the legislation people could simply vote with their feet and leave schools that have this "rule". From the article.

Quebec's Charter of the French Language, Bill 101, requires children of immigrants to attend French-language schools. This has led to generations of allophone Quebecers – those whose mother tongue is neither French nor English – who are perfectly at ease in French. Up until now, the rules have applied inside the classroom only.

[crazy canuck]

I am unaware of anything like a "school pledge" which requires enforcement through legislation.

Huh?  You honestly have never heard of a school board with a policy of having kids say a pledge?  I was required to do it in school.

You do a lot of messed up things in the US.  But that is beside the point. 

[grumbler]

At one point, it was justified to preserve the English language.  But it seems that when it's to protect the French language, and help kids succeed at their French exams by offering total immersion, it's wrong.

I would say that it was stupid either way. You appear to be offended that "it's wrong" when done to "protect the French language" - are you equally offended that it is now considered to have been wrong to "preserve the  English language?"  You can't have it both ways.

Conditional is used in the French text, everywhere, from the title to the last bits of text

That's a different article, and written earlier.  It doesn't have the statement in question. 

We were required to speak proper french in elementary school, even outside class.
What has changed is that in Montreal, french speakers are moving out of the city and immigrants are moving in.  Immigrants don't speak French for the most part.  They speak Portuguese, Spanish, Arabic, Chinese, Vietnamese, etc.  Mostly arabic nowadays.

This is why many people see a problem with Montreal, where French is regressing rather than progressing.  And students have an harder time succeeding at french exams because it's their 3rd language.

You're still not explaining why this would work for you back in the "olden days" but wouldn't work for students today.

I can understand the argument that "this is dumb because they won't have the resources to enforce it."  I don't understand the argument that "this is dumb because, even though they had the resources to make it work when I was in school, they won't have the resources to make it work today."

By your definition US Southern States are not modern:

Not just by my definition.

No, I do not mind.  Historically, French would have developped differently had it not been forbidden everywhere.  There might have been 50% French population in this country instead of 23% and on the decline.

What do you blame for the persistence of the 23%?  Not enough beatings, or insufficiently severe beatings?

Corporal punishment appears creepy to me, yet it's still in use in the US.

Public beheadings appear creepy to me, and yet it's still in use in Saudi Arabia.

[viper37]

The only reason this is an issue is because the policy is backed by the coercive power of Bill 101.  If not for the legislation people could simply vote with their feet and leave schools that have this "rule". From the article.

70% of the parents approve of the proposed policy change.
They can still leave schools that have this "rule", they are free to move outside of Montreal or send their kids to a private school if they disagree with a decision, that ultimately could be in effect by next fall.

Otherwise, they could... well, it's a shocking tought, really, but, it's been to happen, but they could actually vote.  Yes, shocking tought, really, but anyone can present itself as a school comissionner to influence the policies of the school board.  And then, people vote for their favourite commissionner.  And these favourite commissionner simply overturn this "oppressive" policy, or simply don't suggest it in the first place.

Now, if that 70% of the parents is not a real figure, you'd know soon enought, because it would be easy to change.

No bill 101 involved.  Easily changed.  Unnecessary drama from English Canada.  Again. Sigh.

[Oexmelin]

Certainly. My point is simply that the locus of this controversy is in Quebec, not outside of it, as both Cabinet Minister and "prominent" plaintiff's attorney making threatening noises are, both of them, from Quebec, and the story was first 'broken' by a major Montreal newpaper (which, moreover, is a French-language newspaper.

What I'm combatting is the bizzare, counter-factual paranoid fantasy that the story is purely a 'creation of the English Canadian media'. It is not. It may or may nor be a tempest in a teapot, but the English Canadian news services are merely picking up a story reported on in Quebec.

But that wasn't the point at all. Language issues are politically charged issues in Quebec - that's a given, and not much of a surprise that it makes news. Which is not to say that any politically charged issue is by necessity a controversy. The frothing, and the tone of the NP (Tim's inane headline notwitstanding) is not quite "simply reporting" however. The NP was basically doing exactly what Tim was doing: fishing for usual, self-congratulatory indignation. That is all. Again, I urge you to compare the tone of the articles, and show me the hysteria, the froth, the indigination by reading what's being written in La Presse, or Le Devoir.

Oh, wait. You can't.

[crazy canuck]

70% of the parents approve of the proposed policy change.

The interesting thing about rights like freedom of expression is that they are important to protect even if the majority think the expressive right in question isnt all that important.

[viper37]

I would say that it was stupid either way. You appear to be offended that "it's wrong" when done to "protect the French language" - are you equally offended that it is now considered to have been wrong to "preserve the  English language?"  You can't have it both ways.

I'm offended that it's considered "good" or "normal" when done to teach english but "wrong" when done to promote french education.

That's a different article, and written earlier.  It doesn't have the statement in question. 

Yes, it's a different article, duh, that's the point, no?  The NP is wrong, as usual.
Quoting the NP about Quebec is the same as quoting Fox News' web site about Obama's policies.

You're still not explaining why this would work for you back in the "olden days" but wouldn't work for students today.

1, the policy is very similar, except it's now aimed at non french speakers
2, as I told you a dozen times, I'm from a small town, with a small school, with 99,5% french speaking population around.  Foreign languages were not an issue for us.  2-3 non native french speakers out of over 2-300 was not a big deal.  The private high school I attended had about 600 students, the public one around 800.  As far as I can remember in high school... there might have been one girl born in Ontario, but everyone else was born&raised in Quebec, in French.  Language, not an isssue in my time.

What was an issue was the way we spoke french.  I figure there has to be the same in English, with "proper english" and "slang english", and at a written exam on English, you have to use the correct form of english, right?
So, it was the same for us.  We had to speak proper french outside of the class, some words were verbotten, of course, like any swearing, but speaking englihs or swaheli wasn't a problem since no one spoke those languages.

I can understand the argument that "this is dumb because they won't have the resources to enforce it."  I don't understand the argument that "this is dumb because, even though they had the resources to make it work when I was in school, they won't have the resources to make it work today."

Ah I see.  They lacked the resources back in my time too, to enforce propre french everywhere.  They nonetheless try.  I think it is dumb, because I failed to see how it affected performance at French written tests.  Those guys I knew who didn't speak&write proper french back then still have trouble with proper french today.

What do you blame for the persistence of the 23%?  Not enough beatings, or insufficiently severe beatings?

Having our own province.  There's no French majority outside of Quebec.  Under Canadian constitutions, provinces are 100% responsible for lower (pre-college) education, like the districts seem responsible for education in Texas.

Public beheadings appear creepy to me, and yet it's still in use in Saudi Arabia.

Who among us, Languishites would judge Saudi Arabia a modern&civilized country?  Would you say more or less than judge the US as a modern&civilized country?

[viper37]

The interesting thing about rights like freedom of expression is that they are important to protect even if the majority think the expressive right in question isnt all that important.

so kids should be allowed to swear in school, insult their teachers, draw nazi symbols on their books because it's freedom of expression, the same as in the adult world outside of school?  Please, let's be serious.

[garbon]

Certainly. My point is simply that the locus of this controversy is in Quebec, not outside of it, as both Cabinet Minister and "prominent" plaintiff's attorney making threatening noises are, both of them, from Quebec, and the story was first 'broken' by a major Montreal newpaper (which, moreover, is a French-language newspaper.

What I'm combatting is the bizzare, counter-factual paranoid fantasy that the story is purely a 'creation of the English Canadian media'. It is not. It may or may nor be a tempest in a teapot, but the English Canadian news services are merely picking up a story reported on in Quebec.

But that wasn't the point at all. Language issues are politically charged issues in Quebec - that's a given, and not much of a surprise that it makes news. Which is not to say that any politically charged issue is by necessity a controversy. The frothing, and the tone of the NP (Tim's inane headline notwitstanding) is not quite "simply reporting" however. The NP was basically doing exactly what Tim was doing: fishing for usual, self-congratulatory indignation. That is all. Again, I urge you to compare the tone of the articles, and show me the hysteria, the froth, the indigination by reading what's being written in La Presse, or Le Devoir.

Oh, wait. You can't.

No froth evident in this post.

[viper37]

No froth evident in this post.

well, if someone derived it's opinion of the US solely from Fox News, I know a few members here who'd be annoyed.

[garbon]

No froth evident in this post.

well, if someone derived it's opinion of the US solely from Fox News, I know a few members here who'd be annoyed.

Marti does that and I don't think we care.

[crazy canuck]

The interesting thing about rights like freedom of expression is that they are important to protect even if the majority think the expressive right in question isnt all that important.

so kids should be allowed to swear in school, insult their teachers, draw nazi symbols on their books because it's freedom of expression, the same as in the adult world outside of school?  Please, let's be serious.

It is most revealing that you think speaking a language different then french is similar to drawing a nazi symbol in their books.  If we are to be serious perhaps you could do better than try to explain away a clear infringement of legitimate expressive rights by a tyranny of the majority argument.

[Malthus]

Certainly. My point is simply that the locus of this controversy is in Quebec, not outside of it, as both Cabinet Minister and "prominent" plaintiff's attorney making threatening noises are, both of them, from Quebec, and the story was first 'broken' by a major Montreal newpaper (which, moreover, is a French-language newspaper.

What I'm combatting is the bizzare, counter-factual paranoid fantasy that the story is purely a 'creation of the English Canadian media'. It is not. It may or may nor be a tempest in a teapot, but the English Canadian news services are merely picking up a story reported on in Quebec.

But that wasn't the point at all. Language issues are politically charged issues in Quebec - that's a given, and not much of a surprise that it makes news. Which is not to say that any politically charged issue is by necessity a controversy. The frothing, and the tone of the NP (Tim's inane headline notwitstanding) is not quite "simply reporting" however. The NP was basically doing exactly what Tim was doing: fishing for usual, self-congratulatory indignation. That is all. Again, I urge you to compare the tone of the articles, and show me the hysteria, the froth, the indigination by reading what's being written in La Presse, or Le Devoir.

Oh, wait. You can't.

Once again, I point out that the details you *thought* were in the NP article - like the "language police" headline - were *not*, and the details you thought were *not* in the article - like the percentage of allophones, and the pecentage of parents who approved the measure - *were*.

I suggest that the "tone" of "self-congratulatory indignation" you make much of is mostly your subjective analysis. You are seeing what you want to see, and not seeing what you don't.

In fact, the "tone" is reasonably neutral - each "side" is given its say by quotes from spokespersons: the school's "side" is, in fact, given the last word. The fact that the parents approve by a big majority is (contrary to what you noted earlier) specifically stated - 70%. If there are any factual errors in the story, I have yet to hear them stated.

To my mind, getting all indignant about a newspaper in Ontario republishing a story published in Quebec is exactly the sort of "frothy indignation" you were decrying - particularly when, as here, you get the details of that article wrong, in both cases to make the "indignity" out as being worse than it is. 

[Oexmelin]

Whatever.

I think I've had enough of Languish for a while.