Language Bill Deepens a Culture Clash in Quebec

[IluvMTL]

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/09/world/canada/quebec-french-language-laws.html

New York Times 

A Language Bill Deepens a Culture Clash in Quebec

The government calls the new measure necessary for the survival of French, while critics say it stigmatizes bilingualism and is bad for business.

Bilingual signage and street art are a common sight in Montreal, including in the city’s bohemian Plateau-Mont-Royal neighborhood.Credit...Nasuna Stuart-Ulin for The New York Times

By Dan Bilefsky

Oct. 9, 2021

MONTREAL — Since Aude Le Dubé opened an English-only bookshop in Montreal last year, she has had several unwelcome guests each month: Irate Francophones, sometimes draped in Quebec flags, who storm in and berate her for not selling books in French.

“You would think I had opened a sex shop at the Vatican,” mused Ms. Le Dubé, a novelist from Brittany, France, and an ardent F. Scott Fitzgerald fan.

Now, however, Ms. Le Dubé is worried that resistance against businesses like her De Stiil bookshop will intensify. A new language bill that the Quebec government has proposed would solidify the status of French as the paramount language in Quebec, a move that could undermine businesses that depend on English.

Show Full Article

[Rocco]

Of course, Ms Le Dubé didnt expect the backlash 🙄 Stupidity at its finest.

[Exposteve]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/26/quebec-bill-96-french-language-nationalism/
 

 

[Rocco]

"Quebec's intolerant government..." 🙄 Typical anglo fearmongering. But when a business meeting needs to be done in english because of the sole anglophone in a group of 30 people, they find that normal. Jesus Christ.

[ToxiK]

That article is from J.J. McCullough, a known Québec basher.  No credibility whatsover in my opinion.

[Exposteve]

9 hours ago, Rocco said:

"Quebec's intolerant government..." 🙄 Typical anglo fearmongering. But when a business meeting needs to be done in english because of the sole anglophone in a group of 30 people, they find that normal. Jesus Christ.

Sure, that’s frustrating. In my experience working for large multinational corporations it rarely happens (in 2022, not 1990) unless the meeting involves people from outside the province, which is very often in a time of mobility that we live in.  But I can accept that it’s frustrating, even as an Anglo (bilingual) I get upset when a meeting has to be done in English when anglos are clearly in the minority. Par contre je ne vois pas comment la loi 96 changera cette situation.  
 

I don’t agree with how this individual writer framed everything or glossed over some counter-points… but you also can’t dismiss criticism of this as “typical Anglo fear mongering”. Using wild generalizations is how these bills come to be in the first place. Quand t’utilise la clause dérogatoire dès le début c’est parce que tu sais que les droits de plusieurs sont impacté négativement.  
 

La quasi-totalité de ma génération d’anglophones québécois, nés au Québec, sont bilingues (il en aura toujours qui ne le sont pas… parfois parce qu’ils sont épais, parfois parce qu’ils n’ont pas bien été encadrés ou parfois en raison des difficultés d’apprentissage).  Je parle français, Je travailles en français, je parles en français aux travailleurs dans les magasins et restos en français. Mais on dirait que ce n’est jamais assez.  Keep moving the goalposts.  Maintenant c’est un problème que je ne parle pas le français principalement à la maison.   Cette loi est parvenu en grande partie parce que le % de familles sur l’île de Montréal ayant français comme langue maternelle a baissé.  1) les francophones n’arrêtent pas de quitter l’île de Montréal vers la Rive-Sud. C’est un fait clair. It dilutes the gramophone population.  2) La langue parlé à la maison (dans un endroit spécifique) ne correspond pas à la langue utilisé au travail.  Est-ce que je devrais être gêné de parler en anglais à ma famille dans le métro ou au resto?  Dernièrement je me sens presque comme un problème en le faisant. C’est désolant. 

Mon point principal dans tout ça c’est que cette loi impact beaucoup de gens. On peut regarder l’exemple du CEO de Air Canada pour tout justifier mais ce serait une grave erreur parce qu’il ne représente pas la majorité.  Il y a des gens avec des problèmes d’apprentissage, des maladies compliqués, des situations uniques.  Sans dire que cette loi limite encore plus les choix et options des francophones québécois en terme de leur éducation et leur avenir. Oui il y en aura des bons qui seront chanceux et vont réussir à l’international peu importe, mais ça va demeurer l’exception. Demonizing bilingualism, like has been done throughout recent weeks, is a good way to create tension and hold back your own people, qui vient avec des avantages politique malheureusement. Il y a des limites à ce que tu peux faire au nom de la protection de la langue sans être discriminatoire.   C’est une chose de ne pas obliger que certaines services soient disponibles en anglais ou autres langues… mais d’interdire qu’ils le sont est autre chose.  
 

Je ne serais directement peu impacté par cette loi.  Je suis chanceux d’être parfaitement bilingue et d’être établi dans ma carrière.  Mais ça soulève beaucoup de questions par rapport à 1) nos enfants (qui auront des étapes supplémentaires à suivre au cegep… qui sont « raisonnables » pour les plus intelligents/ brillants mais moins pour ceux qui ont des difficultés… qui devront appliquer aux universités basé sur leur rendement au cegep, et 2) tous les gens que je connais qui ne sont pas aussi chanceux que moi.  Et bien-sur on se demande « what’s next? ».  Ce n’est pas en limitant l’accès au cegep qu’une génération d’étudiants n’apercevra pas qu’il y a un monde à l’extérieur du Québec à découvrir (qui est plus facilement découverte en anglais)… est-ce qu’on va interdire l’accès aux sites web en anglais?  Les commandes en ligne au McDo en anglais? Netflix en anglais?  Ca parait peut-être extrême mais on est rendu là.  

 

[Exposteve]

5 hours ago, ToxiK said:

That article is from J.J. McCullough, a known Québec basher.  No credibility whatsover in my opinion.

Yeah, maybe true. But ask yourself why the government chose to use the notwithstanding clause twice in three years and whether that’s appropriate. You might see a justification “this time” (I don’t know you, I’m saying this hypothetically) but a lot of people don’t think it’s appropriate and next time it might be you who is materially impacted. 
 

Discussing sensitive political issues on an Internet forum is never productive, I’ll admit.     But neither is dismissing entire opinions, or (in the case of other posts) just saying it’s typical whining from anglos. That’s painting with a wide brush, and when the government starts doing that it’s usually not a good sign. 

[ToxiK]

il y a 10 minutes, Exposteve a dit :

Yeah, maybe true. But ask yourself why the government chose to use the notwithstanding clause twice in three years and whether that’s appropriate. You might see a justification “this time” (I don’t know you, I’m saying this hypothetically) but a lot of people don’t think it’s appropriate and next time it might be you who is materially impacted. 
 

Discussing sensitive political issues on an Internet forum is never productive, I’ll admit.     But neither is dismissing entire opinions, or (in the case of other posts) just saying it’s typical whining from anglos. That’s painting with a wide brush, and when the government starts doing that it’s usually not a good sign. 

I agree with using the notwithstanding clause (even if I would prefer it wasn't needed) because I don't think the 1982 Constitution was drafted with having in mind the right of Québec to have the society of its choice.  Canada wants multiculturalism (which isn't by any mean the worst philosophy ever) but it is not what Québec wants.  Canada wants to shove that one size fits all philosophy down Québec's throat, and we know that when something in Canada is one size fits all, it is usually just the right size for Ontario (must be a coincidence...).  Québec wanting immigrants to integrate into the main culture in Québec is a valid view, but since it doesn't fit exactly with the view of multiculturalism, then it is racist or genocidal or oppression (I read those terms in comments from the ROC).  Same thing with religious symbols for people in position of power, it is a valid view (people can disagree, of course) but that doesn't make people supporting it fascists.

In the 1995 referendum and in the years after, federalists and people from the ROC kept saying that Québec doesn't need to separate because almost whatever Québec wanted to do with its society, they could do it inside Canada with asymmetric federalism and the notwithstanding clause and so on.  Now we will see it that was true or just bulls**t.

[Exposteve]

21 minutes ago, ToxiK said:

I agree with using the notwithstanding clause (even if I would prefer it wasn't needed) because I don't think the 1982 Constitution was drafted with having in mind the right of Québec to have the society of its choice.  Canada wants multiculturalism (which isn't by any mean the worst philosophy ever) but it is not what Québec wants.  Canada wants to shove that one size fits all philosophy down Québec's throat, and we know that when something in Canada is one size fits all, it is usually just the right size for Ontario (must be a coincidence...).  Québec wanting immigrants to integrate into the main culture in Québec is a valid view, but since it doesn't fit exactly with the view of multiculturalism, then it is racist or genocidal or oppression (I read those terms in comments from the ROC).  Same thing with religious symbols for people in position of power, it is a valid view (people can disagree, of course) but that doesn't make people supporting it fascists.

In the 1995 referendum and in the years after, federalists and people from the ROC kept saying that Québec doesn't need to separate because almost whatever Québec wanted to do with its society, they could do it inside Canada with asymmetric federalism and the notwithstanding clause and so on.  Now we will see it that was true or just bulls**t.

You have to reflect as to whether “what Quebec wants to do” is really what all of Quebec wants to do or a portion of Quebec. A government is not there to take a popular opinion and apply it to all notwithstanding the impacts on the rights of people who are against it.  If a majority of individuals want something that, as a consequence, infringes on rights of people, it doesn’t make it right.  As an extreme example… a majority of people are not physically handicapped… if they all voted that we shouldn’t spend money on wheelchair ramps anymore, would that be acceptable?  Of course not… even if that’s what “Quebec wants”. 
 

An issue here is the law causes actual problems (believe it or not, not just whining) for many in the population and adds huge bureaucratic costs and obstacles to both public and private sectors… all while the real “enemy” here is the world, globalization, mobility, and interconnected societies (especially online).    We are not in a vacuum.  We are also not in the same world as 1995. And as an added bonus we have extreme views from both sides back in the public view, which benefits nobody. 

And your comment about Québec wanting to integrate immigrants into the main culture… who ever said that is a bad thing?  It’s not suggested to be “genocidal” to integrate… but to make it illegal to offer service in another language, even if both can speak that language, is a more extreme position. You can choose not to offer service in another language, but to make it illegal to provide such service is another story.  That is the difference.  

[Ousb]

il y a 7 minutes, ToxiK a dit :

Same thing with religious symbols for people in position of power, it is a valid view (people can disagree, of course) but that doesn't make people supporting it fascists.

Tout partisan de la laïcité n’est pas intolérant. Par contre au Québec et en France, beaucoup supportent la laïcité parce qu’ils sont intolérants. Elle est là, la nuance. Beaucoup ont un problème avec l’islam surtout. Les femmes voilées etc. Et quand on voit la manière dont est orienté le débat qui ne parle presqu’exclusivement que des musulmans, les publicités politiques pro-laïcité ne mettant en scène que des hidjabs, les articles innombrables et populaires du JDM sur l’islam c’est facile à constater.

En tant que minorité, je n’accepterai jamais que la majorité puisse avoir un moyen de me fermer le bec à jamais tout en décidant de mes droits à moi. Pas des siens, des miens. Nous sommes les premiers visés par la loi 21 mais nous sommes les seuls qui n’avons pas droit au chapitre. En quoi cela est-il juste ? Si aujourd’hui une majorité de Canadiens décidaient que le Français devrait être retiré des langues officielles est ce que Legault dirait qu’ils ont raison et que la majorité a parlé ? Je ne crois pas non. 
 

Vraiment tanné de la politique au Québec. C’est beaucoup trop sale. Et je suis l’éternel sujet de la lutte pour le pouvoir. Et le pire c’est que ça marche. J’essaye de me concentrer à faire plus d’argent à la place, c’est moins déprimant.