Language Police to Force Children to Speak French During Recess

[Malthus]

The whipping into frothy indignation appears to be happening entirely within Quebec. The Post is merely reporting on it.

Tim is one of us.  He hides it very well, but secretly, he is teaching in Quebec.
Unless there's another thread started by a Québécois.  Because otherwise, you're wrong, as usual when it comes to Quebec.

I'm refering to the contents of the article, not to Tim - who, as far as I understand the matter, is not being reported on.

Unless you are stating that "prominent Montreal civil rights lawyer" Julius Grey and "Cabinet Minister" Christine St-Pierre (both, I understand, from the Province of Quebec) are both really Timmay ... 

[Malthus]

Where's the froth? Where's the indignation? Is Viper the spokesperson for Quebec?

I'm referring to the contents of the article, not to Tim posting it or Viper bringing his usual clarity and insight to it.

When I see on the one hand a "prominent Montreal civil rights lawyer" saying that the policy is " is a clear violation of students' rights and would not withstand a court challenge", while a "Liberal Cabinet Minister" supports the policy, the natural supposition is that the *source* of the "froth and indignation" is *within* Quebec. 

Unless of course the Post made all that stuff up.

[frunk]

Well, grumbler, to be fair, we don't know yet whether or not present-day Quebec is the cultural or educational equivalent of Louisiana in the 919th century.  We'll have to wait almost 89800 years to find out for sure.

Grumbler will be experiencing his mid-life crisis then, so I'm sure it'll be an exciting time.

[Oexmelin]

I'm referring to the contents of the article, not to Tim posting it or Viper bringing his usual clarity and insight to it.

When I see on the one hand a "prominent Montreal civil rights lawyer" saying that the policy is " is a clear violation of students' rights and would not withstand a court challenge", while a "Liberal Cabinet Minister" supports the policy, the natural supposition is that the *source* of the "froth and indignation" is *within* Quebec. 

Unless of course the Post made all that stuff up.

Why is the Post reporting the story? Why is it reporting the story in such terms? Why has there been a reference to the Language police in the title? Why haven't the elements I mentioned (which one can easily find in La Presse, which first broke out the story) been included in th Post's article?

Read the story in both French and English: the difference in tone is readily apparent.

[Malthus]

I'm referring to the contents of the article, not to Tim posting it or Viper bringing his usual clarity and insight to it.

When I see on the one hand a "prominent Montreal civil rights lawyer" saying that the policy is " is a clear violation of students' rights and would not withstand a court challenge", while a "Liberal Cabinet Minister" supports the policy, the natural supposition is that the *source* of the "froth and indignation" is *within* Quebec. 

Unless of course the Post made all that stuff up.

Why is the Post reporting the story? Why is it reporting the story in such terms? Why has there been a reference to the Language police in the title? Why haven't the elements I mentioned (which one can easily find in La Presse, which first broke out the story) been included in th Post's article?

Read the story in both French and English: the difference in tone is readily apparent.

As for the title - you are mistaking Timmay's thread title for that of the published article (hint: there is no reference to "language police" in the title of the article). The story's only mention of "language police" is a direct quotation from the spokesperson for the policy, denying that there will be any!

Title of article: "No recess from French as Montreal schools to scan playground chatter"

Timmay's Thread Title: "Language Police to Force Children to Speak French During Recess"

As to the rest - it's a news story in Quebec with reactions from Cabinet Ministers and prominent civil rights lawyers. It is clearly not a "nothing" of a story in Quebec. The "tone" you are, apparently, getting from Timmay.

Edit: as for the "items that you mentioned", the only one the Post article did not mention was the fact that the school board commissioner was Hungarian-born - hardly a seminal point.

Your quote:

I'll just note in passing that this eventual policy was grounded in a survey made which comprised more than 2/3 of allophone parents who supported it at 70%, and that one of the school board commissioner who spoke to the press in favour of it was Hungarian-born Akos Verboczy.

The article:

The school board's statistics show 53% of its students have a mother tongue other than French. A poll this fall of 811 parents found 70% agreed with imposing French at all times.

Your argument that the story is biased by leaving out vital facts is not persuasive.

[crazy canuck]

@ CC: See Barrister's answer. Same people. Hence the reason why De Courcy underlined the fact that there would be no language police, despite the NP's title. In fact, it is pretty clear that it is more akin to a «school pledge» than to the kind of repressive apparatus the NP is hinting at (shocking!).

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

[Oexmelin]

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.

[Jacob]

When I see on the one hand a "prominent Montreal civil rights lawyer" saying that the policy is " is a clear violation of students' rights and would not withstand a court challenge", while a "Liberal Cabinet Minister" supports the policy, the natural supposition is that the *source* of the "froth and indignation" is *within* Quebec. 

Unless of course the Post made all that stuff up.

Plenty of froth in this thread

[The Minsky Moment]

De Laussat left c.a. 1831.  French was still a vibrant language in Louisiana at the time.

Nitpick: Laussat left in 1804, not long after the ceremony which transfered Louisiana to the US (and not long after the ceremony which had previously transfered it back to France...). And yes, French was very vibrant both in 1804 (due to the influx of planter-refugees from Haiti) and in 1831 (due to the arrival of the new wave of French immigrants, the «Foreign French»). The turning point was set in the late 1840s, with the end of the Civil War marking the decline of political control by Francophones, despite rising number of French immigrants (there were still more from other parts of the world, who decided rather to learn English... hmm...).

Just joking about the rather unusual dialects spoken in Louisiana, not making a serious point.

[Oexmelin]

Just joking about the rather unusual dialects spoken in Louisiana, not making a serious point.

I know.

Didn't think you were frothing either.

[Malthus]

When I see on the one hand a "prominent Montreal civil rights lawyer" saying that the policy is " is a clear violation of students' rights and would not withstand a court challenge", while a "Liberal Cabinet Minister" supports the policy, the natural supposition is that the *source* of the "froth and indignation" is *within* Quebec. 

Unless of course the Post made all that stuff up.

Plenty of froth in this thread

Well, that's true enough. When Oex assigns blame for a Timmay title to the English Canadian media as a whole, as if Timmay worked for the Post* you know there is some froth. Not to mention Viper's vapourings.

However, the notion that this story is a creation of the English Canadian media is, you know, patently false.


*Mind you, in some cases that would be an improvement ...

[Razgovory]

Incidentally, I've come to the conclusion that Canada should do it's best to destroy French in Quebec.  Speakers of Germanic languages are badly outnumbered in the Western Hemisphere by Romance speakers, if we want to keep our cultural distinctiveness we must keep the Romance languages out.  At least in Canada.  In Texas, they can speak all the Spanish they want.

[The Minsky Moment]

I don't see the big deal.

The Commissioner has made a finding that lots of children in the school system are having a difficult time learning French.  Putting aside all the language politics, it is unquestionably a legitimate concern of a school system that children aren't learning effectively enough with respect to a subject on the core curriculum.  It is also unobjectionable that using a language in a social setting will facilitate language learning - this is the premise behind immersion programs, language "lunch tables" etc.  Recess is in fact school time and there is no reason why school officials shouldn't seek to further pedagogical ends by structuring recess time accordingly.  The only valid objection I can think of is that this intervention will be perceieved by the children as intrusive and thus backfire, but that is an objection to efficacy, not theory.

[garbon]

I don't see the big deal.

The Commissioner has made a finding that lots of children in the school system are having a difficult time learning French.  Putting aside all the language politics, it is unquestionably a legitimate concern of a school system that children aren't learning effectively enough with respect to a subject on the core curriculum.  It is also unobjectionable that using a language in a social setting will facilitate language learning - this is the premise behind immersion programs, language "lunch tables" etc.  Recess is in fact school time and there is no reason why school officials shouldn't seek to further pedagogical ends by structuring recess time accordingly.  The only valid objection I can think of is that this intervention will be perceieved by the children as intrusive and thus backfire, but that is an objection to efficacy, not theory.

I don't think anyone is objecting to the theory of it working. I think they are objecting to the intrusiveness of forcing children to speak a specific language even when they are essentially relaxing during recess.

[Valmy]

I don't think anyone is objecting to the theory of it working. I think they are objecting to the intrusiveness of forcing children to speak a specific language even when they are essentially relaxing during recess.

Obviously the people who actually have an interest in the policy, the school board and the parents, do not object they support the policy...indeed they created it.  It seems odd to sit around worried what some local school board someplace does.  At least they are not banning evolution or something.