Was Acadian Lessons
Vincent Lupien
k.St.Denis wrote:
>
> Paul,
>
> For your information, I travel to Montreal quite a bit. I've seen
> the changes in my life time. Where Montreal used to be one of the great
> places to look for good jobs for any young people upon graduation, now
> has become one of the last places (even for the french speaking).
>
<snip>
>
> So please don't tell me that the Quebecois are so open and can speak
> in English. Maybe 25 years ago, the Quebecois were able to communicate
> in both English and French. Now, more and more Quebecois have
> only the ability to speak French only.
>
>
> Katie
>
Every time you post this garbage, I will be on your tail.
About Montreal: It was a great city in the 60's, wasn't it? English-speaking industrialists
built it, made it beautiful and rich. The French-speaking majority was not a part of
this activity. The dominant language in Montreal (in terms of power and influence, not
numbers), was English. You think it was bilingual because you could speak English there
to anybody. The truth is that those people were English only.
Those who would not deal with the rise to power of the Francophone majority and their
"unpopular" moves left and took their money with them to Ontario. That is why Montreal
sucks now. Maybe it will be rebuilt. But I assure you that if it is, it will be by people
who respect the dominance of French in Quebec.
Here is what I see as the truth:
1. The Quebecois are more and more bilingual with time. This applies to both
English and French speakers.
2. Services in English are guaranteed in Quebec and will remain so forever.
3. Although services in English may not be to the satisfaction of all English
speakers, the rating of these services should be made based on our best available
standard: Ontario. Services in French in Ontario were not to my satisfaction because:
WITH FEW EXCEPTIONS, I received unilingual English service in BOTH Federal and Provincial
Government Offices for the 15 years during which I inhabited Ontario.
Compared with Ontario, Quebec services the minority community excellently.
The experiences which disappoint you, in which a dominance of French was experienced,
are _normal_ in a French-speaking province like Quebec. However, you have experienced
little compared to a francophone in Ontario.
If I were to be outraged everytime a Rapidair flight leaving from Pearson to Dorval is
announced only in English, everytime the _only_ bilingual employee at the provincial government
office is magically "absent today", everytime the "bilingual" job listing actually means
"english", everytime I have to read a product label or instruction booklet in French that
makes ABSOLUTELY no sense, and everytime people speak mostly English in supposedly "bilingual"
children's programs, I would surely be ten times more venomous than you.
But these inconveniences are a reality in English-speaking majorities.
The truth is that in the Quebec of my parents' generation, it was English-only
rather than French-only. In Quebec! Can you believe it? The language of a group
6 times more numerous than the English was often not recognized.
It's about time that people like you feel the pressure of the French language.
It's about time that you feel uncomfortable that things are announced only in French.
I like it, and I hope it continues. When you hear French only, let it be a reminder
of where you are:
AU QUEBEC, SACRAMENT!
Vincent Lupien
MIT
Cambridge, MA
Paul Rodgers
On Mon, 10 Mar 1997 11:44:35 -0500, Vincent Lupien <vhlu...@mit.edu> wrote:
>k.St.Denis wrote:
>>
>> Paul,
>>
>> For your information, I travel to Montreal quite a bit. I've seen
>> the changes in my life time. Where Montreal used to be one of the great
>> places to look for good jobs for any young people upon graduation, now
>> has become one of the last places (even for the french speaking).
>>
><snip>
>>
>> So please don't tell me that the Quebecois are so open and can speak
>> in English. Maybe 25 years ago, the Quebecois were able to communicate
>> in both English and French. Now, more and more Quebecois have
>> only the ability to speak French only.
>>
>>
>> Katie
>>
>
>Every time you post this garbage, I will be on your tail.
BRAVO! 8 millions de Québécois t'applaudissent Vincent. BRAVO.
À présent, espétrons que sa capacité d'apprentissage est égale à celle de la
grande majorité anglophone du Québec. Seul le respect peut engendrer le respect.
Paul Rodgers
~~~~~~~~~~~~
" Lionel Groulx, je regrette seulement qu'il n'ait pas été juif "
David Rome
Archiviste, Congrès Juif canadien
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wes Warner
In message <33243A...@mit.edu> - Vincent Lupien <vhlu...@mit.edu>
writes:
[snip]
:>Every time you post this garbage, I will be on your tail.
:>
:>About Montreal: It was a great city in the 60's, wasn't it? English-speaking industrialists
:>built it, made it beautiful and rich. The French-speaking majority was not a part of
:>this activity. The dominant language in Montreal (in terms of power and influence, not
:>numbers), was English. You think it was bilingual because you could speak English there
:>to anybody. The truth is that those people were English only.
:>
:>Those who would not deal with the rise to power of the Francophone majority and their
:>"unpopular" moves left and took their money with them to Ontario. That is why Montreal
:>sucks now. Maybe it will be rebuilt. But I assure you that if it is, it will be by :>people who respect the dominance of French in Quebec.
*** Those who make "unpopular" moves, as you call it,
have to live with the consequences.
The people who left Quebec did not leave their homes
willingly or enthusiastically, they left because they
felt they had no choice.
The people who left did not do so all at once. There was
ample time for the Quebec gov. to survey those departing
or planning to depart, and attempt -- in a normal market
economy sense -- to adjust the adverse policies causing
the departure, without compromising the francophone
majority's wishes. That is the role of good government.
You correctly say "Montreal sucks now" and talk about
rebuilding Montreal. If the Quebec gov. had done less
to destroy it, it would not need rebuilding.
The only reason for talking about the folly of the past 30
years is that it is continuing. It has not hit bottom.
If there is a bottom, it is far below where things are now.
Cities are built by investors and entrepreneurs, serving
the profit motive, in the widest possible market; not by
linguists serving ethnocentric motives.
You do not seek linguistic respect, you seek submission;
you are unlikely to get it, and would not want it
if you got it.
Wes
:>
:>Here is what I see as the truth:
Patrick Lepine
Vincent Lupien wrote:
>
> k.St.Denis wrote:
> >
> > Paul,
> >
> > For your information, I travel to Montreal quite a bit. I've seen
> > the changes in my life time. Where Montreal used to be one of the great
> > places to look for good jobs for any young people upon graduation, now
> > has become one of the last places (even for the french speaking).
> >
> <snip>
> >
> > So please don't tell me that the Quebecois are so open and can speak
> > in English. Maybe 25 years ago, the Quebecois were able to communicate
> > in both English and French. Now, more and more Quebecois have
> > only the ability to speak French only.
> >
> >
> > Katie
> >
>
>
> About Montreal: It was a great city in the 60's, wasn't it? English-speaking industrialists
> built it, made it beautiful and rich. The French-speaking majority was not a part of
> this activity. The dominant language in Montreal (in terms of power and influence, not
> numbers), was English. You think it was bilingual because you could speak English there
> to anybody. The truth is that those people were English only.
>
> Those who would not deal with the rise to power of the Francophone majority and their
> "unpopular" moves left and took their money with them to Ontario. That is why Montreal
> sucks now. Maybe it will be rebuilt. But I assure you that if it is, it will be by people
> who respect the dominance of French in Quebec.
>
> 1. The Quebecois are more and more bilingual with time. This applies to both
> English and French speakers.
BS. English speakers speak French, but French speakers don't learn
French. Don't give me that crap about English being taught in French
schools. The French start second language training 4 years after
English students in Quebec. The French school system teaches English so
well that my Francophone cousins couldn't talk to their own grandmother.
Their father is completely bilingual.
> 2. Services in English are guaranteed in Quebec and will remain so forever.
BS. English services are deteriorating and will continue to do so. I
couldn't even find someone in the Education department to speak English
to me.
> 3. Although services in English may not be to the satisfaction of all English
> speakers, the rating of these services should be made based on our best available
> standard: Ontario. Services in French in Ontario were not to my satisfaction because:
> WITH FEW EXCEPTIONS, I received unilingual English service in BOTH Federal and Provincial
> Government Offices for the 15 years during which I inhabited Ontario.
> Compared with Ontario, Quebec services the minority community excellently.
Taking the time to compare and contrast English Quebecers and French
Ontarians would take so long I'd rather do it in e-mail to avoid the
megs of info.
> The experiences which disappoint you, in which a dominance of French was experienced,
> are _normal_ in a French-speaking province like Quebec. However, you have experienced
> little compared to a francophone in Ontario.
Ibid.
> If I were to be outraged everytime a Rapidair flight leaving from Pearson to Dorval is
> announced only in English, everytime the _only_ bilingual employee at the provincial government
> office is magically "absent today", everytime the "bilingual" job listing actually means
> "english", everytime I have to read a product label or instruction booklet in French that
> makes ABSOLUTELY no sense, and everytime people speak mostly English in supposedly "bilingual"
> children's programs, I would surely be ten times more venomous than you.
>
> But these inconveniences are a reality in English-speaking majorities.
>
> The truth is that in the Quebec of my parents' generation, it was English-only
> rather than French-only. In Quebec! Can you believe it? The language of a group
> 6 times more numerous than the English was often not recognized.
>
> It's about time that people like you feel the pressure of the French language.
> It's about time that you feel uncomfortable that things are announced only in French.
> I like it, and I hope it continues. When you hear French only, let it be a reminder
> of where you are:
>
> AU QUEBEC, SACRAMENT!
Um tone down the frustration Vincent, you've gone seriously over the
top. I don't believe you're as bad as this post makes you look.
Patrick Lepine
Patrick Lepine
Paul Rodgers wrote:
>
> On Mon, 10 Mar 1997 11:44:35 -0500, Vincent Lupien <vhlu...@mit.edu> wrote:
>
> >k.St.Denis wrote:
> >>
> >> Paul,
> >>
> >> For your information, I travel to Montreal quite a bit. I've seen
> >> the changes in my life time. Where Montreal used to be one of the great
> >> places to look for good jobs for any young people upon graduation, now
> >> has become one of the last places (even for the french speaking).
> >>
> ><snip>
> >>
> >> So please don't tell me that the Quebecois are so open and can speak
> >> in English. Maybe 25 years ago, the Quebecois were able to communicate
> >> in both English and French. Now, more and more Quebecois have
> >> only the ability to speak French only.
> >>
> >>
> >> Katie
> >>
> >
> >Every time you post this garbage, I will be on your tail.
>
Where does this number come from? there are approx. 7 million
inhabitants of Quebec, about 1 million of whom don't qualify as
Quebecois in Paul's habitual definition.
Patrick Lepine
Vincent Lupien
I write: Quebecois (both French and English) are more and more bilingual.
You write: Only English speakers learn the other language.
Let's compare to Ontario. Are there more French speakers in Quebec who have
learned English than there are English speakers in Ontario who have learned French? YES.
Are there fewer English speakers in Quebec who have learned French than there
are French speakers in Quebec who have learned English? YES
I write: Services in English are guaranteed in Quebec and will remain so forever.
You write: English services are deteriorating and will continue to do so.
As French properly takes its dominant position in the province, English speakers
are bound to experience a decline in the over-representation of service they previously
enjoyed. Get used to it and talk to any franco-ontarian to see what HIS reality is.
Then you write: I was not served in English by the Education department.
Boo-hoo-hoo.
Is this your pitiful excuse for a response to the lack of services in French
I have personally experienced over 15 years in Ontario, and which I have outlined
in part in my previous post? What a joke.
I wrote:
Although services in English may not be to the satisfaction of all English
speakers, the rating of these services should be made based on our best available
standard: Ontario. Services in French in Ontario were not to my satisfaction because:
WITH FEW EXCEPTIONS, I received unilingual English service in BOTH Federal and Provincial
Government Offices for the 15 years during which I inhabited Ontario.
Compared with Ontario, Quebec services the minority community excellently.
You wrote:
> Taking the time to compare and contrast English Quebecers and French
> Ontarians would take so long I'd rather do it in e-mail to avoid the
> megs of info.
Yes, it WOULD take you quite a long time to contrast the two groups because I suspect
you know NOTHING of Ontario. You didn't expect me to turn out to have lived
15 years in Ontario, did you? You are really in a difficult position now, aren't you?
Being the Quebecer that you are doesn't help you understand, but rather it clouds your
judgement. I say this after reading your posts for one month. You view is centered
on Quebec. You have little real knowledge of other provinces (or other countries) other
than what you have read, and ultimately it is the basis for the failure your arguments.
You complain constantly about the status of English in Quebec, but you never do it
in objectivity by contrasting to francophones in Ontario. I hope you will continue to
exercise your democratic right to be properly represented in all government institutions,
as you should. But be very careful about sullying the image of Quebec because of your
dissatisfaction. Look at Ontario before criticizing Quebec.
Everytime you make an attempt at dishonestly discrediting the Quebec government,
I will be on your tail.
I wrote:
It's about time that people like you feel the pressure of the French language.
It's about time that you feel uncomfortable that things are announced only in French.
I like it, and I hope it continues. When you hear French only, let it be a reminder
of where you are:
AU QUEBEC, SACRAMENT!
You wrote:
> Um tone down the frustration Vincent, you've gone seriously over the
> top. I don't believe you're as bad as this post makes you look.
The post makes me look a little worse than I am, but I have no need for political correctness.
Here is what I meant:
English speakers in Quebec are spoiled in contrast with francophones outside Quebec,
and I like that the greater status of French in Quebec is felt by all members of Quebec
society. I hope it will continue.
Neil
On Tue, 11 Mar 1997, Vincent Lupien wrote:
> As French properly takes its dominant position in the province, English
> speakers are bound to experience a decline in the over-representation of
> service they previously enjoyed. Get used to it and talk to any
> franco-ontarian to see what HIS reality is.
[snip]
"Get used to it", eh? Very impressive Vincent. I see that you are one of
those people who really doesn't give a shit about Quebec's economy,
probably because its poor condition doesn't affect your livelihood in the
least bit. WIth an "Our service sucks, get used to it" attitude, Quebec
would be doomed in the current competitive global marketplace (as a
country or as a province), but of course, you wouldn't feel the effects of
that. Only the little guy would. How convenient.
Neil
Arizona State University
http://www.public.asu.edu/~neils
Paul Rodgers
On Tue, 11 Mar 1997 07:39:57 -0700, Patrick Lepine <infp...@icrossroads.com>
wrote:
Patrick, in included all the Montreal electoral districts, which according to
galgamorve, are populated by more than 95% with anglophones:-))
Patrick Lepine
Vincent Lupien wrote:
>
> I write: Quebecois (both French and English) are more and more bilingual.
> You write: Only English speakers learn the other language.
>
> Let's compare to Ontario. Are there more French speakers in Quebec who have
> learned English than there are English speakers in Ontario who have learned French? YES.
> Are there fewer English speakers in Quebec who have learned French than there
> are French speakers in Quebec who have learned English? YES
Are you trying to use false analogies on purpose? Are there more French
speakers than anything else in Quebec? Yes. How stupid would French
Quebec have to be for the number of French speakers to exceed the number
of English speakers trying to become bilingual? Extremely. Simply
stated, if all non francophones became bilingual, it would take less
than 25% of French speakers to out number them. Would the rates of
bilingualism even be comparable (100 vs 25)? Not at all.
I don't have th numbers for bilingualism in Ontarion, but lets face it,
there are more bilingual people in Ontario than Quebec. (I'm wondering
if you'll catch what I'm saying here). The fact that there are any
Anglos in Ontario, or more surprisingly Alberta, learning French is
impressive enough. French isn't that important to their daily lives or
futures. Spanish is a much better choice for a second language, given
NA geography/demographics.
> I write: Services in English are guaranteed in Quebec and will remain so forever.
> You write: English services are deteriorating and will continue to do so.
>
> As French properly takes its dominant position in the province, English speakers
> are bound to experience a decline in the over-representation of service they previously
> enjoyed. Get used to it and talk to any franco-ontarian to see what HIS reality is.
>
> Then you write: I was not served in English by the Education department.
> Boo-hoo-hoo.
> Is this your pitiful excuse for a response to the lack of services in French
> I have personally experienced over 15 years in Ontario, and which I have outlined
> in part in my previous post? What a joke.
>
> I wrote:
> Although services in English may not be to the satisfaction of all English
> speakers, the rating of these services should be made based on our best available
> standard: Ontario. Services in French in Ontario were not to my satisfaction because:
> WITH FEW EXCEPTIONS, I received unilingual English service in BOTH Federal and Provincial
> Government Offices for the 15 years during which I inhabited Ontario.
> Compared with Ontario, Quebec services the minority community excellently.
Now I see what your big problem is. Your analogy that French in Ontario
and English in Quebec should be in the same position is so completely
full of holes I could go on typing ad infinitum.
> You wrote:
> > Taking the time to compare and contrast English Quebecers and French
> > Ontarians would take so long I'd rather do it in e-mail to avoid the
> > megs of info.
>
> Yes, it WOULD take you quite a long time to contrast the two groups because I suspect
> you know NOTHING of Ontario. You didn't expect me to turn out to have lived
> 15 years in Ontario, did you? You are really in a difficult position now, aren't you?
You know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING of the history of English Montreal. Your
experience in Ontario is comnpletely irrelevant. I am willing to
concede that French services in Ontario suck. The problem is that you
are comparing it to English Montreal. This is such a big case of
comparing apples to oranges that it boggles my mind that an MIT student
would make the comparison.Compare your treatment in Ontario to English
Quebec City now.
> Being the Quebecer that you are doesn't help you understand, but rather it clouds your
> judgement. I say this after reading your posts for one month. You view is centered
> on Quebec. You have little real knowledge of other provinces (or other countries) other
> than what you have read, and ultimately it is the basis for the failure your arguments.
> You complain constantly about the status of English in Quebec, but you never do it
> in objectivity by contrasting to francophones in Ontario. I hope you will continue to
> exercise your democratic right to be properly represented in all government institutions,
> as you should. But be very careful about sullying the image of Quebec because of your
> dissatisfaction. Look at Ontario before criticizing Quebec.
>
> Everytime you make an attempt at dishonestly discrediting the Quebec government,
> I will be on your tail.
>
> I wrote:
> It's about time that people like you feel the pressure of the French language.
> It's about time that you feel uncomfortable that things are announced only in French.
> I like it, and I hope it continues. When you hear French only, let it be a reminder
> of where you are:
>
> AU QUEBEC, SACRAMENT!
>
> You wrote:
> > Um tone down the frustration Vincent, you've gone seriously over the
> > top. I don't believe you're as bad as this post makes you look.
>
> The post makes me look a little worse than I am, but I have no need for political correctness.
> Here is what I meant:
>
> English speakers in Quebec are spoiled in contrast with francophones outside Quebec,
> and I like that the greater status of French in Quebec is felt by all members of Quebec
> society. I hope it will continue.
>
Strange. The way it came out was: who needs to be polite? **** the
minorities. English Quebec's minorities worked far harder for what they
have far longer ago than French Ontarians. Anglo Quebec is better off?
OOOOh I'm so surprised.
Patrick Lepine
Vincent Lupien
I write: Quebecois (both French and English) are more and more bilingual.
You write: Only English speakers learn the other language.
Let's compare to Ontario. Are there more French speakers in Quebec who have
learned English than there are English speakers in Ontario who have learned French? YES.
Are there fewer English speakers in Quebec who have learned French than there
are French speakers in Quebec who have learned English? YES
I write: Services in English are guaranteed in Quebec and will remain so forever.
You write: English services are deteriorating and will continue to do so.
As French properly takes its dominant position in the province, English speakers
are bound to experience a decline in the over-representation of service they previously
enjoyed. Get used to it and talk to any franco-ontarian to see what HIS reality is.
Then you write: I was not served in English by the Education department.
Boo-hoo-hoo.
Is this your pitiful excuse for a response to the lack of services in French
I have personally experienced over 15 years in Ontario, and which I have outlined
in part in my previous post? What a joke.
I wrote:
Although services in English may not be to the satisfaction of all English
speakers, the rating of these services should be made based on our best available
standard: Ontario. Services in French in Ontario were not to my satisfaction because:
WITH FEW EXCEPTIONS, I received unilingual English service in BOTH Federal and Provincial
Government Offices for the 15 years during which I inhabited Ontario.
Compared with Ontario, Quebec services the minority community excellently.
You wrote:
> Taking the time to compare and contrast English Quebecers and French
> Ontarians would take so long I'd rather do it in e-mail to avoid the
> megs of info.
Yes, it WOULD take you quite a long time to contrast the two groups because I suspect
you know NOTHING of Ontario. You didn't expect me to turn out to have lived
15 years in Ontario, did you? You are really in a difficult position now, aren't you?
Being the Quebecer that you are doesn't help you understand, but rather it clouds your
judgement. I say this after reading your posts for one month. You view is centered
on Quebec. You have little real knowledge of other provinces (or other countries) other
than what you have read, and ultimately it is the basis for the failure your arguments.
You complain constantly about the status of English in Quebec, but you never do it
in objectivity by contrasting to francophones in Ontario. I hope you will continue to
exercise your democratic right to be properly represented in all government institutions,
as you should. But be very careful about sullying the image of Quebec because of your
dissatisfaction. Look at Ontario before criticizing Quebec.
Everytime you make an attempt at dishonestly discrediting the Quebec government,
I will be on your tail.
I wrote:
It's about time that people like you feel the pressure of the French language.
It's about time that you feel uncomfortable that things are announced only in French.
I like it, and I hope it continues. When you hear French only, let it be a reminder
of where you are:
AU QUEBEC, SACRAMENT!
You wrote:
> Um tone down the frustration Vincent, you've gone seriously over the
> top. I don't believe you're as bad as this post makes you look.
The post makes me look a little worse than I am, but I have no need for political correctness.
Here is what I meant:
English speakers in Quebec are spoiled in contrast with francophones outside Quebec,
and I like that the greater status of French in Quebec is felt by all members of Quebec
society. I hope it will continue.
Vincent Lupien
MIT
Cambridge, MA
Tony Kondaks
Peter S. Saly <Pe...@saly.com> wrote:
: Vincent,
: Thank you for voicing so clearly what non-french Quebecois have known all
: along about separatists like you...
: Namely, to rephrase the above paragraph:
: Since, francophones outside Quebec are worse off than Anglophones within
: Quebec, it is justified for the anglophones in Quebec to lose the rights
: and perogatives they have enjoyed until now...
: This is the bottom line of the original Bill 1 and Bill 101...
Well said.
And don't forget, of course, that Quebec francophones, with very few
exceptions, abandoned their brethren in other provinces whenever their
rights were being infringed upon (i.e. they discouraged the federal
government from protecting them).
So the nationalists get the best of both worlds: on the one hand, they
contribute to the miserable situation of the francophones outside of
Quebec and then, on the other hand, they are able to say: see how terribly
francophones outside Quebec are treated compated to anglos in Quebec...and
use that as an excuse to pass hate/race laws like Bill 101...
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tkondaks __ __ ____ ___ ___ ____
tkon...@primenet.com /__)/__) / / / / /_ /\ / /_ /
/ / \ / / / / /__ / \/ /___ /-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter S. Saly
Vincent Lupien wrote
> .
> <snip>
>
> Here is what I meant:
>
> English speakers in Quebec are spoiled in contrast with francophones
outside Quebec,
> and I like that the greater status of French in Quebec is felt by all
members of Quebec
> society. I hope it will continue.
>
Vincent,
David Nicholson
Tony Kondaks <tkon...@primenet.com> ecrivait:
( - - - )
>use that as an excuse to pass hate/race laws like Bill 101...
Qu'est-ce qu'on peut dire? Rien que - - -
Oui, Vincent, il est _capoté de meme_.
David
jc
Since when are Francophones outside Quebec worse off than Anglophones inside
Quebec? There are no laws to limit what language people speak and what
language people put on signs etc. outside of Quebec. These abuses of human
rights only occur within Quebec.
T. Downing
>Paul Rodgers wrote:
>>
>> BRAVO! 8 millions de Québécois t'applaudissent Vincent.
>
>Where does this number come from? there are approx. 7 million
>inhabitants of Quebec, about 1 million of whom don't qualify as
>Quebecois in Paul's habitual definition.
Ya, one minute we're getting punched in the nose, the next minute
we're part of his gang.
M. Oink
Vincent Lupien
I write: Quebecois (both French and English) are more and more bilingual.
You write: Only English speakers learn the other language.
I write: Let's compare to Ontario. Are there more French speakers in Quebec who have
learned English than there are English speakers in Ontario who have learned French? YES.
Are there fewer English speakers in Quebec who have learned French than there
are French speakers in Quebec who have learned English? YES
You write:
Are you trying to use false analogies on purpose? Are there more French
speakers than anything else in Quebec? Yes. How stupid would French
Quebec have to be for the number of French speakers to exceed the number
of English speakers trying to become bilingual? Extremely.
Huh? Read what I wrote again. Here are the groups I am comparing:
% French speakers in Quebec learning English > % English Speakers in Ontario learning French
% French speakers in Ontario learning English > % English speaker in Quebec learning French
Take your time, look at these inequations, and think about them real hard.
You wrote:
> The fact that there are any Anglos in Ontario, or more surprisingly Alberta, learning French is
> impressive enough. French isn't that important to their daily lives or
> futures. Spanish is a much better choice for a second language, given
> NA geography/demographics.
So using the same logic it should be surprising that French Quebecers
learn English at all since English isn't that important to their daily lives or futures.
Or perhaps you are arguing that French Quebecers SHOULD learn English but Albertans SHOULDN't
learn French because English is the dominant language of all of Canada, and the importance of French in
Quebec should be overriden by the dominance of English. Which then supports your notion that
English Quebecers SHOULD have higher status in Quebec than francophones elsewhere in Canada.
Oh oh... But then that model poses a BIG problem for you in an _independent_ Quebec, doesn't it?
Because then the anglophone minority becomes irrelevant in Quebec. Maybe that is why you feel so
threatened. It is because you feel your own bigotry towards French Canada will be reversed against you.
Don't worry though, because it won't be. The only sword you will feel is the sword of mercy and
compassion on behalf of the francophone majority. In the end this will hurt you more because it will reveal
your own ugliness.
> You know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING of the history of English Montreal. Your
> experience in Ontario is completely irrelevant.
Unfortunately for you, I am well versed in all sides of the story and have personally
experienced all the classical facets of the problem, including the English Montreal side.
Your fundamental weakness comes in the narrowness of your focus and your experiences.
I suggest that you travel around Canada and the US. Wherever you go, pretend you are a local.
Try to feel the way the locals feel. Act like a local,
eat like a local, try to talk like a local, go see the same events as a local. Perhaps you
could start off with French Quebec, and then move on to Toronto, then the Maritimes, the Prairies,
the interior of BC, and then the West Coast. Then it would be nice to try out New England,
Californa, New York, the Midwest, The Deep South, and the Southwest.
Actually, sounds like an exciting trip to me!
Shall I book some tickets for you? Maybe we could go together!
I think such a trip would enrich your views.
You wrote:
> English Quebec's minorities worked far harder for what they
> have far longer ago than French Ontarians. Anglo Quebec is better off?
> OOOOh I'm so surprised.
A call to everyone reading this message: Does anybody other than Patrick Lepine believe
this statment? Does anyone believe that the establishment of Montreal as a centre of
wealth and power in Canada came to English Montrealers in spite of, and in a struggle for
survival against, the evil dominating French-Canadians? And that the comparative lack of
wealth and power of francophones in Ontario came because of simple laziness and lack of vision
on their part?
Comme c'est insultant. Tellement insultant que je ne te rendrai plus JAMAIS le service
de t'ecrire en anglais. Ma langue de choix est le francais et je t'ecris en anglais
parce que je crois que ca te facilite les choses. Je n'ai plus envie d'etre poli avec toi.
De toute facon, je n'ai plus vraiment envie de discuter avec toi du tout. Ca a ete le fun de voir
ce qu'il y avait a l'interieur de ton petit crane, mais la ca commence a ne plus etre drole.
Toujours la meme fermeture d'esprit. Tu es toi-meme le meilleur exemple d'un quebecois
a l'esprit ferme que j'aie rencontre de toute ma vie! Ce ne sont pas les separatistes qui
sont racistes et myopiques, c'est toi Patrick.
Tu peux aller chercher tous mes messages depuis mon arrivee a ce newsgroup, et tu verras
que j'y suis arrive avec l'esprit ouvert, donnant le benifice du toute a quiconque je
parlais. Mes discussions avec toi ont escalade parce que tu n'as jamais fait preuve
de la meme ouverture d'esprit. Tu ne merites pas mon attention. Tu es un vieux grincheux
qui ne sera jamais content et qui ne veut aucunement ameliorer la situation, mais plutot
passer des heures incessantes a se plaindre. Tu es axe sur le passe, un passe que la majorite
des Quebecois a rejete en faveur d'une nouvelle realite qui nous reste encore a definir.
Je ne perdrai plus mon temps a te lire. SALUT!
JFL
Peter S. Saly wrote:
>
> Vincent Lupien wrote
> > .
> > <snip>
> >
> > Here is what I meant:
> >
> > English speakers in Quebec are spoiled in contrast with francophones
> outside Quebec,
> > and I like that the greater status of French in Quebec is felt by all
> members of Quebec
> > society. I hope it will continue.
> >
>
> Vincent,
>
> Thank you for voicing so clearly what non-french Quebecois have known all
> along about separatists like you...
>
> Namely, to rephrase the above paragraph:
>
> Since, francophones outside Quebec are worse off than Anglophones within
> Quebec, it is justified for the anglophones in Quebec to lose the rights
> and perogatives they have enjoyed until now...
I'm not sure if your "rephrasing" is correct, but anyway. My point is
about the message in the rephrasing.
I beleive that anglo-Québécois don't have to suffer a loss in their
rights because franco-Canadians living in other provinces than Québec
must battle and go to court to get the elementary- and high-schools the
Canadian Constitution allows them.
To have a better Canada, I beleive all franco-Canadians should get the
same level of services anglo-Québécois get.
If franco-Canadians didn't build their own schools and hospitals in
history (as anglo-Québécois did), it's because they didn't have the
power to do so (they were a minority everywhere, or even sometimes the
right to do so.
History can't be corrected. The future can, indeed.
>
> This is the bottom line of the original Bill 1 and Bill 101...
This time, I think you're wrong. This is only a senseless complaint.
Bill 101 was to give francophones the right to work in french in Québec,
to live in french in Québec institutions. This was to integrate
immigrants to the majority of the province.
Your opinion seems paranoia to me.
Patrick Lepine
Vincent Lupien wrote:
>
> I write: Quebecois (both French and English) are more and more bilingual.
>
> You write: Only English speakers learn the other language.
>
> I write: Let's compare to Ontario. Are there more French speakers in Quebec who have
> learned English than there are English speakers in Ontario who have learned French? YES.
> Are there fewer English speakers in Quebec who have learned French than there
> are French speakers in Quebec who have learned English? YES
>
> You write:
> Are you trying to use false analogies on purpose? Are there more French
> speakers than anything else in Quebec? Yes. How stupid would French
> Quebec have to be for the number of French speakers to exceed the number
> of English speakers trying to become bilingual? Extremely.
>
> Huh? Read what I wrote again. Here are the groups I am comparing:
You either didn't write what you wanted to or you didn't reread what you
wrote. Here's what you wrote again:
>Are there fewer English speakers in Quebec who have learned French than there
> are French speakers in Quebec who have learned English? YES
English speakers in Quebec learning French vs French speakers in Quebec
learning English.
Maybe you should reread what you wrote before saying, "huh?" You should
be saying "huh, what the hell did I write there?"
> % French speakers in Quebec learning English > % English Speakers in Ontario learning French
>
> % French speakers in Ontario learning English > % English speaker in Quebec learning French
> Take your time, look at these inequations, and think about them real hard.
You don't even know what you wrote. Those equations are not what you
posted earlier. Admit your mistake, and I won't keep calling you an
idiot.
> You wrote:
> > The fact that there are any Anglos in Ontario, or more surprisingly Alberta, learning French is
> > impressive enough. French isn't that important to their daily lives or
> > futures. Spanish is a much better choice for a second language, given
> > NA geography/demographics.
>
> So using the same logic it should be surprising that French Quebecers
> learn English at all since English isn't that important to their daily lives or futures.
That's right. There are almost no English speakers in North America for
Quebecers to do business with. There are 80 million Spanish speakers in
Mexico alone. add in the rest of central america and you have well
over 100 million potential customers. 100 vs 7. I think it's pretty
safe to say that Spanish is a much bigger potential market, even if they
only make 1/10 as much as the French of NA.
> Or perhaps you are arguing that French Quebecers SHOULD learn English but Albertans SHOULDN't
> learn French because English is the dominant language of all of Canada, and the importance of French in
> Quebec should be overriden by the dominance of English. Which then supports your notion that
> English Quebecers SHOULD have higher status in Quebec than francophones elsewhere in Canada.
Feel free to make up any dream you have about what I want. Considering
the evidence you're using (apparently your imagination) I don't need to
comment.
> Oh oh... But then that model poses a BIG problem for you in an _independent_ Quebec, doesn't it?
> Because then the anglophone minority becomes irrelevant in Quebec. Maybe that is why you feel so
> threatened. It is because you feel your own bigotry towards French Canada will be reversed against you.
> Don't worry though, because it won't be. The only sword you will feel is the sword of mercy and
> compassion on behalf of the francophone majority. In the end this will hurt you more because it will reveal
> your own ugliness.
The mercy of those who try to banish English from sight? OOOOh I can't
wait for that kindness to show the world what Quebec really is.
> > You know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING of the history of English Montreal. Your
> > experience in Ontario is completely irrelevant.
>
> Unfortunately for you, I am well versed in all sides of the story and have personally
> experienced all the classical facets of the problem, including the English Montreal side.
> Your fundamental weakness comes in the narrowness of your focus and your experiences.
> I suggest that you travel around Canada and the US. Wherever you go, pretend you are a local.
> Try to feel the way the locals feel. Act like a local,
> eat like a local, try to talk like a local, go see the same events as a local. Perhaps you
> could start off with French Quebec, and then move on to Toronto, then the Maritimes, the Prairies,
> the interior of BC, and then the West Coast. Then it would be nice to try out New England,
> Californa, New York, the Midwest, The Deep South, and the Southwest.
> Actually, sounds like an exciting trip to me!
> Shall I book some tickets for you? Maybe we could go together!
> I think such a trip would enrich your views.
>
> You wrote:
> > English Quebec's minorities worked far harder for what they
> > have far longer ago than French Ontarians. Anglo Quebec is better off?
> > OOOOh I'm so surprised.
>
> A call to everyone reading this message: Does anybody other than Patrick Lepine believe
> this statment? Does anyone believe that the establishment of Montreal as a centre of
> wealth and power in Canada came to English Montrealers in spite of, and in a struggle for
> survival against, the evil dominating French-Canadians? And that the comparative lack of
> wealth and power of francophones in Ontario came because of simple laziness and lack of vision
> on their part?
My it's fun to make up what other people have said isn't it? I said
that English Montreal had advantages qand used them. Nothing was done
for them. The French outside Quebec have no yet found the capital to
provide the infrastructure English Quebec has. Their situation should
not be compared to English Montreal.
> Comme c'est insultant. Tellement insultant que je ne te rendrai plus JAMAIS le service
> de t'ecrire en anglais. Ma langue de choix est le francais et je t'ecris en anglais
> parce que je crois que ca te facilite les choses. Je n'ai plus envie d'etre poli avec toi.
> De toute facon, je n'ai plus vraiment envie de discuter avec toi du tout. Ca a ete le fun de voir
> ce qu'il y avait a l'interieur de ton petit crane, mais la ca commence a ne plus etre drole.
> Toujours la meme fermeture d'esprit. Tu es toi-meme le meilleur exemple d'un quebecois
> a l'esprit ferme que j'aie rencontre de toute ma vie! Ce ne sont pas les separatistes qui
> sont racistes et myopiques, c'est toi Patrick.
>
> Tu peux aller chercher tous mes messages depuis mon arrivee a ce newsgroup, et tu verras
> que j'y suis arrive avec l'esprit ouvert, donnant le benifice du toute a quiconque je
> parlais. Mes discussions avec toi ont escalade parce que tu n'as jamais fait preuve
> de la meme ouverture d'esprit. Tu ne merites pas mon attention. Tu es un vieux grincheux
> qui ne sera jamais content et qui ne veut aucunement ameliorer la situation, mais plutot
> passer des heures incessantes a se plaindre. Tu es axe sur le passe, un passe que la majorite
> des Quebecois a rejete en faveur d'une nouvelle realite qui nous reste encore a definir.
>
> Je ne perdrai plus mon temps a te lire. SALUT!
>
> Vincent Lupien
> MIT
> Cambridge, MA
Now's my turn to make up the way Vincent sees an independent Quebec.
After a narrow victory, English will be illegal in Quebec. Microphones
will be placed in the homes of suspected English speakers. Any evidence
of this foul plague upon the lives of Quebecers will be dealt with by
the strictest means possible. We will close in on ourselves to protect
our culture. FTW
Patrick Lepine
Tony Kondaks
David Nicholson <699...@ican.net> wrote:
: Tony Kondaks <tkon...@primenet.com> ecrivait:
: David
David, do you find it offensive or uncomfortable that I refer to Bill 101
as a "race" or "hate" law?
A "race" law it certainly is buy virtue of its language of education
provisions which utilize a procedure of discrimination identical to those
found in Canada's Indian Act (which many well known jurists have called a
"race" law) and in South Africa's former apartheid laws.
A "hate" law it is (albeit a more subjective description) because its
impetus is not based upon any perceived goal of preserving or protecting
French (which by any standard of measurement or judgement does not and
should not need preserving or protecting) but upon an OBVIOUS hated of all
things anglophone...
Vincent Lupien
Patrick Lepine wrote:
>
> Maybe you should reread what you wrote before saying, "huh?" You should
> be saying "huh, what the hell did I write there?"
>
phrase aurait du etre "Ontario". Milles excuses! Je suis plus habitue avec les
equations qu'avec les mots! Les equations sont correctes, cependant. Et je maintiens
le reste de ce que j'ai ecrit.
SALUT!
Comme...
J'ai toujours besoin D'aimer
J'ai toujours envie de toi,
O toi que j'ai-ai-ai-me!
Christian Lemay
Patrick Lepine <infp...@icrossroads.com> a écrit dans l'article
<3325E6...@icrossroads.com>...
> Vincent Lupien wrote:
> Patrick Lepine
>
Es-tu deja venu a Quebec? Ici, tous les services sont disponibles dans les
deux langues. J'avoue que quelques fois il faut etre patient, mais les gens
sont d'habitude tres polis et cherchent quelqu'un de bilingue le plus
rapidement possible pour repondre au besoin. Dans les sevices
gouvernementaux federaux, 50% des emplois exigent d'etre bilingue (contre
2% au Canada hors-Quebec). Dans les services provinciaux qui doivent
repondre au public, il y toujours des personnes bilingues en poste. Il y a
plusieurs ecoles anglophones au niveau primaire et secondaire et un CEGEP.
Dans tous les restaurants ayant un minimum de classe, les menus sont
bilingues et les serveurs aussi, il y a au moins deux cinema dont la
programmation est unilingue Anglaise. Il y a une petite communaute
Anglophone et certains sont unilingues Anglais. Ca ne doit pas etre si
mal!!!
Laisse moi te dire que pour avoir visiter plusieurs villes en Ontario, je
n'en ai pas encore trouve une qui offre aux francophones ce que Quebec
offre aux Anglo, particulierement au niveau de la politesse.
Patrick Lepine
Christian Lemay wrote:
> >
> Es-tu deja venu a Quebec? Ici, tous les services sont disponibles dans les
> deux langues. J'avoue que quelques fois il faut etre patient, mais les gens
> sont d'habitude tres polis et cherchent quelqu'un de bilingue le plus
> rapidement possible pour repondre au besoin. Dans les sevices
> gouvernementaux federaux, 50% des emplois exigent d'etre bilingue (contre
> 2% au Canada hors-Quebec). Dans les services provinciaux qui doivent
> repondre au public, il y toujours des personnes bilingues en poste. Il y a
> plusieurs ecoles anglophones au niveau primaire et secondaire et un CEGEP.
> Dans tous les restaurants ayant un minimum de classe, les menus sont
> bilingues et les serveurs aussi, il y a au moins deux cinema dont la
> programmation est unilingue Anglaise. Il y a une petite communaute
> Anglophone et certains sont unilingues Anglais. Ca ne doit pas etre si
> mal!!!
>
> Laisse moi te dire que pour avoir visiter plusieurs villes en Ontario, je
> n'en ai pas encore trouve une qui offre aux francophones ce que Quebec
> offre aux Anglo, particulierement au niveau de la politesse.
Comparer le Quebec au autres provinces n'est pas la maniere de montrer
notre tolerance. On est poli ou impoli. Ce que les autres fait n'est
pas important. C'est comme compare les Canadiens (l'equipe de hockey) a
une equipe bantam. Oui les Canadiens sont beaucoup mieux mais ca ne
veut pas dire que l'equipe est vraiment bonne.
Je reconnais que la situation est beaucoup mieux au Quebec pour les
services bilingue. Pourtant ce n'est pas parfait. Comme j'ai deja dit
ce n'est pas toujours possible d'avoir les services en anglais, et des
fois c'est necessaire d'etre bien compris/bien comprendre (decrire nos
symtomes/directions d'un medecin, comme exemple).
Cad, on doit se comparer a la perfection et non a une province du Canada
qui ne fait pas bien son job.
Pour repondre a ta question, est-ce que 27 ans au Quebec est assez?
Patrick Lepine
Peter S. Saly
JFL wrote in article
>
> This time, I think you're wrong. This is only a senseless complaint.
> Bill 101 was to give francophones the right to work in french in Québec
(1),
> to live in french in Québec institutions(2). This was to integrate
> immigrants to the majority of the province(3).
>
1)
If the french Quebecois were not living and working in french in Quebec for
300 years before Bill 101.
There would NOT be any french in Quebec at all.....
2)
Before Bill 101, all the institutions in Quebec were bilingual....
That is French and English.....
3)
The last phrase is the only true statement you have made.
Unfortunately, real integration does not require limiting the rights of the
minority.
Real integration is achiieved by expanding the rights and opportunities of
everyone...
It is the percieved lack of opportunities of the more recent arrivals in a
French only environment that is causing the new arrivals to find ways to
get english access or ultimately leave the province...
Bill 101 is more counter-productive than you realise....
But then all race laws, no matter how well disguised, are always
counter-productive in the long run...
Peter
Paul Rodgers
On Thu, 13 Mar 1997 10:10:30 -0700, Patrick Lepine <infp...@icrossroads.com>
wrote:
>Christian Lemay wrote:
>
>> >
>> Es-tu deja venu a Quebec? Ici, tous les services sont disponibles dans les
>> deux langues. J'avoue que quelques fois il faut etre patient, mais les gens
>> sont d'habitude tres polis et cherchent quelqu'un de bilingue le plus
>> rapidement possible pour repondre au besoin. Dans les sevices
>> gouvernementaux federaux, 50% des emplois exigent d'etre bilingue (contre
>> 2% au Canada hors-Quebec). Dans les services provinciaux qui doivent
>> repondre au public, il y toujours des personnes bilingues en poste. Il y a
>> plusieurs ecoles anglophones au niveau primaire et secondaire et un CEGEP.
>> Dans tous les restaurants ayant un minimum de classe, les menus sont
>> bilingues et les serveurs aussi, il y a au moins deux cinema dont la
>> programmation est unilingue Anglaise. Il y a une petite communaute
>> Anglophone et certains sont unilingues Anglais. Ca ne doit pas etre si
>> mal!!!
>>
>> Laisse moi te dire que pour avoir visiter plusieurs villes en Ontario, je
>> n'en ai pas encore trouve une qui offre aux francophones ce que Quebec
>> offre aux Anglo, particulierement au niveau de la politesse.
>
>Comparer le Quebec au autres provinces n'est pas la maniere de montrer
Il ne compare pas une province à une autre, mais plutôt, deux facon
diamétralement opposée pour l'humain de traiter son semblable. Il est dit et
répété que la majorité anglophone ontarienne traite sa minorité francophone avec
le même mépris, irrespect et condescendance que la minorité anglo-québécoise
traita la majorité franco-québécoise pour beaucoup trop longtemps. Contrairement
au respect, tolérance dont recoit et est en droit de recevoir la minorité
anglo-québécoise de la part de la majorité franco-québécoise. Et ce traitement
respectueux ne lui est pas reconnu parce qu'anglos, mais parce qu'humain. Niveau
d'évolution dont l'Anglo-Canadian est soustrait.
>notre tolerance. On est poli ou impoli. Ce que les autres fait n'est
>pas important. C'est comme compare les Canadiens (l'equipe de hockey) a
Tant qu'à faire dans le simplisme.... lache pas ti-guy!
>une equipe bantam. Oui les Canadiens sont beaucoup mieux mais ca ne
>veut pas dire que l'equipe est vraiment bonne.
>Je reconnais que la situation est beaucoup mieux au Quebec pour les
>services bilingue. Pourtant ce n'est pas parfait. Comme j'ai deja dit
>ce n'est pas toujours possible d'avoir les services en anglais, et des
>fois c'est necessaire d'etre bien compris/bien comprendre (decrire nos
>symtomes/directions d'un medecin, comme exemple).
>Cad, on doit se comparer a la perfection et non a une province du Canada
>qui ne fait pas bien son job.
>Pour repondre a ta question, est-ce que 27 ans au Quebec est assez?
Il y a longtemps que tu as répondu à ta question :-))
>Patrick Lepine
Paul Rodgers
~~~~~~~~~~~~
" Ce que le peuple n'a pu gagner un jour, il n'y
renonce jamais et finit toujours par l'obtenir."
Louis-Joseph Papineau
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
S.Dubé
Vincent Lupien wrote:
>
> k.St.Denis wrote:
> >
> > Paul,
> >
> > For your information, I travel to Montreal quite a bit. I've seen
> > the changes in my life time. Where Montreal used to be one of the great
> > places to look for good jobs for any young people upon graduation, now
> > has become one of the last places (even for the french speaking).
> >
> <snip>
> >
> > So please don't tell me that the Quebecois are so open and can speak
> > in English. Maybe 25 years ago, the Quebecois were able to communicate
> > in both English and French. Now, more and more Quebecois have
> > only the ability to speak French only.
> >
> >
> > Katie
> >
>
>
> About Montreal: It was a great city in the 60's, wasn't it? English-speaking industrialists
> built it, made it beautiful and rich. The French-speaking majority was not a part of
> this activity. The dominant language in Montreal (in terms of power and influence, not
> numbers), was English. You think it was bilingual because you could speak English there
> to anybody. The truth is that those people were English only.
>
> Those who would not deal with the rise to power of the Francophone majority and their
> "unpopular" moves left and took their money with them to Ontario. That is why Montreal
> sucks now. Maybe it will be rebuilt. But I assure you that if it is, it will be by people
> who respect the dominance of French in Quebec.
>
> Here is what I see as the truth:
> 1. The Quebecois are more and more bilingual with time. This applies to both
> English and French speakers.
>
>
> 3. Although services in English may not be to the satisfaction of all English
> speakers, the rating of these services should be made based on our best available
> standard: Ontario. Services in French in Ontario were not to my satisfaction because:
> WITH FEW EXCEPTIONS, I received unilingual English service in BOTH Federal and Provincial
> Government Offices for the 15 years during which I inhabited Ontario.
> Compared with Ontario, Quebec services the minority community excellently.
>
> are _normal_ in a French-speaking province like Quebec. However, you have experienced
> little compared to a francophone in Ontario.
>
> announced only in English, everytime the _only_ bilingual employee at the provincial government
> office is magically "absent today", everytime the "bilingual" job listing actually means
> "english", everytime I have to read a product label or instruction booklet in French that
> makes ABSOLUTELY no sense, and everytime people speak mostly English in supposedly "bilingual"
> children's programs, I would surely be ten times more venomous than you.
>
> But these inconveniences are a reality in English-speaking majorities.
>
> The truth is that in the Quebec of my parents' generation, it was English-only
> rather than French-only. In Quebec! Can you believe it? The language of a group
> 6 times more numerous than the English was often not recognized.
>
> It's about time that you feel uncomfortable that things are announced only in French.
> I like it, and I hope it continues. When you hear French only, let it be a reminder
> of where you are:
>
> AU QUEBEC, SACRAMENT!
>
> MIT
> Cambridge, MA
ON S'ENERVE MISTER LOUPIENNNNN !!!
S.Dubé
Montréal,Québec
Vincent Lupien
Peter S. Saly wrote:
> Bill 101 is more counter-productive than you realise....
> But then all race laws, no matter how well disguised, are always
> counter-productive in the long run...
>
> Peter
Arrete de nous Salyr le cerveau, Saly!
Ce que tu dis, c'est que les immigrants percoivent le francais comme
une reduction de leurs opportunites, (et tu le percois comme ca
aussi car tu trouves que le francais est un "carcan"), et que
les moyens qu'on a utilise au Quebec pour prevenir que tous ces
immigrants se ruent vers l'anglais sont inacceptables.
Ce que tu trouverais acceptable, donc, ce serait que les immigrants
arrivent, et choisissent leur langue (ce qui veut dire, pour toi, l'anglais).
Ton dialogue expose clairement que tu vois le francais comme
une langue inferieure que nul nouveau venu ne voudrait choisir.
En fait, tu te consideres superieur en tant qu'anglophone et
tu verrais la pre-eminence de l'anglais a Montreal comme etant juste.
La plupart des anglophones les plus vocaux sur le sujet du Quebec
ressemblent a la description de Ray Conlogue, un ecrivain Torontois qui
habite Montreal depuis 5 ans: (Auteur de: Impossible Nation, The longing for
homeland in Canada and Quebec)
"Cette minorite-la a une mentalite schizophrene. Elle refuse la realite. C'est
une minorite locale qui fait partie d'une majorite nationale. Ces gens vivent
au Quebec mais ne regardent pas les emissions de television les plus
populaires, ne lisent pas les journaux francophones, et The Gazette leur
presente la culture populaire americaine. Ils ont peu de rapports avec la
culture francophone qui les entoure. Pour resister a l'assimilation, ils n'ont
qu'a zapper. L'anglais, apres tout, est la seule langue du monde qui
monopolise un aussi grand continent! Les francophones leur demandent de
considerer le Quebec comme leur pays. Mais ils en sont incapables. Les jeunes
sont un peu mieux... Mais ils ont herite de la mentalite de superiorite de
leurs parents. C'est triste."
Les libertes humaines ne sont pas infinies. Au Canada, la majorite est
d'accord pour de grandes restrictions sur le port d'armes, restrictions qui
seraient considerees inacceptables dans certains etats americains. Aux etats
unis, ceux qui brulent le drapeau americain sont mis en prison. Au Canada, on
confisque les bateaux des etrangers qui pechent trop de poisson.
Au Quebec, on a decide de faire de notre langue le francais, et on a
decide que c'etait important. Ensuite, on a pris des mesures pour
que cette decision soit refletee par la societe.
A chaque fois qu'une loi ne satisfait pas aux preferences d'un groupe
minoritaire, celui-ci se plaint que cette loi limite injustement ses libertes.
Les fumeurs utilisent le meme argument pour avoir le droit de fumer. Quand les
activites d'une minorite sont jugees dangereuses au bien-etre de la majorite,
cette majorite met en place des mesures pour limiter la liberte de la
minorite. C'est tout simplement la democratie. La pre-eminence de l'anglais
dans le passe recent a Montreal, ainsi que la mentalite de superiorite de la
minorite anglophone constituent un danger au bien-etre de la majorite des
Quebecois. Le peuple a donc agi.
Il n'y a rien de plus respectable que cela. Et tu peux etre sur, mon
petit Saly, que la meme chose se produit en ce moment a Vancouver,
c'est a dire que les Anglophones portent beaucoup d'attention
a ce que la maree d'immigrants soit proprement integree a
la societe: EN ANGLAIS. Il y a de graves inquietudes que divers groupes
culturels soient assez grands pour ne pas avoir besoin de s'integrer a la
culture Canadienne-anglaise, et que cela serait nefaste a la majorite.
Il y a un honneur et un respect a avoir pour un peuple comme le Quebec qui a
su s'affirmer sans hypocrisie quant a l'importance de la langue, et la
Colombie-Britannique sera obligee de faire de meme.
Le Massachusetts prend des mesures semblables. Cet etat a mis en place des
programmes bilingues pour les nouveaux-venus. Ce programme permet aux enfants
d'apprendre les maths, etc. dans leur langue maternelle des leur arrivee
pendant qu'ils apprennent l'anglais.
Cependant, une etude recente a demontre que le programme retardait de beaucoup
leur apprentissage de l'anglais. Dans certains cas, le programme a ete juge
abusif par l'etat car des groupes minoritaires se servaient du programme pour
empecher l'assimilation des enfants a la culture americaine. Or, le but du
programme etait l'inverse, c'est-a-dire de faciliter l'integration a la
societe americaine. Les fonds pour ce programme ont donc ete coupes
serieusement pour que ces minorites soient obligees de s'integrer plus
rapidement.
Les Etats-Unis, voila un autre peuple non-hypocrite qui sait affirmer sa
culture aux nouveaux-venus.
Nous allons continuer a affirmer la notre au Quebec, et il n'y a heureusement
pas grand chose que tu puisses y faire. Encore plus heureusement, il n'y a
rien de contestable a ces gestes non plus.
Saly!
Je veux dire: Salut!
Librairie info-detente
Tony Kondaks <tkon...@primenet.com> a repondu a mon posting qui suit:
>: Oui, Vincent, il est _capoté de meme_.
>David, do you find it offensive or uncomfortable that I refer to Bill 101
>as a "race" or "hate" law?
>
>A "race" law it certainly is (remarques haineuses coupées)
M.Kondaks:
Nous avons lu toutes tes remarques semblables cet été passé, y compris ton aveu que t'as
grossièrement exageré. Meme toi tu ne crois pas que les lois linguitiques du Québec sont sur
un pied d'égalité avec des lois apartheidiennes de l'ancien Afrique du sud.
Nous sommes devenus tous conscients pendant ton absence bien meritée de SCQ, que même la Cour
suprème du Canada (les juges tous nommés par Ottawa) a donné son aval a la loi 101 tel qu'elle
est actuellement.
Donc, ça se peut bien que tu considère que les juges de la Cour suprème soient racistes, eux
aussi (ils le sont, selon la définition de ton frère jumeau Wes). Je sais que tu es également
d'avis que les lois scolaires du Québec ET des autres provinces ET la clause 23 de la Charte
canadienne des droits et libertées sont racistes, eux aussi.
Ça, c'est un peu pourquoi j'ai écris que tu _es_ capoté de même.
David (qui écris au maudit niouze-groupe, même de Coaticook, pendant mes vacances)
Peter S. Saly
Vincent Lupien wrote in article
> Arrete de nous Salyr le cerveau, Saly!
>
Ah le beau petit jeu de mot...
Cher Vincent, sors ta tete de ton cul. La matiere brune odorifante entre
tes oreilles n'est pas ton cerveau.
>
> Ce que tu dis, c'est que les immigrants percoivent le francais comme
> une reduction de leurs opportunites,
>
Eh oui, tu l'as
>
> (et tu le percois comme ca aussi car tu trouves que le francais est un >
"carcan")
>
Ce n'est pas ce que j'ai ecrit (petit saligo, euh, Salygo va...)
Ce serait plus poli si tu laissait le paragraphe entier que de prendre un
mot hors contexte...
Si je me rappelle, j'ai ecrit dans le genre que la restriction d'acces a
rien que le francais est percu comme un carcan...
>
> ...et que les moyens qu'on a utilise au Quebec pour prevenir que tous ces
> immigrants se ruent vers l'anglais sont inacceptables.
>
Oui...
>
> Ce que tu trouverais acceptable, donc, ce serait que les immigrants
> arrivent, et choisissent leur langue (ce qui veut dire, pour toi,
l'anglais).
>
Pas de probleme avec ca...
Mais j'ai aussi ajoute, que ce serait plus efficace d'encourager les
nouveaux-venus par des methodes positives que negatives a adopter le
francais...
(reference a miel et vinaigre....)
>
> Ton dialogue expose clairement que tu vois le francais comme
> une langue inferieure que nul nouveau venu ne voudrait choisir.
>
Rendu a MIT et pas capable de lire, quelle pitie...
Pour moi les languages ne sont que des outils de communication.
Comme un marteau et un tournevis, les deux ont des forces et faiblesses.
Mais je ne suis pas asse stupide de croire qu'un marteau peut tout faire et
pour cette raison est un meilleur outil que le tournevis. (Apparament c'est
ton probleme...)
Le choix n'a rien a voir avec la valeur (reelle ou imaginee) du francais,
ou sa superiorite vis-a-vis d'autre langues...
Le choix, a a faire avec les opportunites presentes et futures disponibles
avec l'effort requis d'apprendre une langue
(En anglais, on appele ca ROI, Return on Investment...)
Aussi longtemps que les benefices d'acquerir le francais sont moindres que
les benefices d'acquerir l'anglais, la motivation pour apprendre le
francais va etre tres limite.
Les separatistes ont choisi une methode negative de forcer le choix vers le
francais.
C'est la cause de mon probleme....
>
> En fait, tu te consideres superieur en tant qu'anglophone et
> tu verrais la pre-eminence de l'anglais a Montreal comme etant juste.
> La plupart des anglophones les plus vocaux sur le sujet du Quebec
> ressemblent a la description de Ray Conlogue, un ecrivain Torontois qui
> habite Montreal depuis 5 ans: (Auteur de: Impossible Nation, The longing
for
> homeland in Canada and Quebec)
>
Qu'est-ce qui te fait a croire que je suis anglophone ?
(S. Dube a fait la meme erreur)
Faut pas assumer des choses comme ca
C'est pour ca que ton paragraphe precedent est une grosse connerie
>
> "Cette minorite-la a une mentalite schizophrene. Elle refuse la realite.
C'est
> une minorite locale qui fait partie d'une majorite nationale.
>
Eh oui, c'est gens-la n'arretent pas a la frontiere du Quebec..
La schizophrenie est cause par des facteurs externes. Par exemple, un
chien ou chat qui ne sait pas s'il va se faire tape dessus ou carresse a
chaque rencontre peut devenir schizophrene....
Et les anglophones au Quebec ont recu une longue serie de tapes et de
caresses dans les 30 dernieres annees.
Et la source principale de ces gestes sont les separatistes..
Pourquoi ne seraient'0ils pas mefiants ???
>
> ...Ces gens vivent
> au Quebec mais ne regardent pas les emissions de television les plus
> populaires, ne lisent pas les journaux francophones...
>
En d'autres termes, ils ne sont pas assez moutons pour toi.
Parce qu'ils ne lisent pas les journaux approuves et ne regardent pas les
emmission recommandes
N'etais-ce pas le system qui existait derrire le rideau de fer jusqu'a tres
recemment ???
>
> et The Gazette leur presente la culture populaire americaine.
> Ils ont peu de rapports avec la culture francophone qui les entoure.
>
Ah oui, "The Gazette", cet agent de propagande americaine....
Etants residents du Quebec, j'imagine qu'ils ont beaucoup plus de rapports
avec leur environement Quebecois que toi a Boston....
>
> Pour resister a l'assimilation, ils n'ont qu'a zapper.
>
Et pour le moment c'est toujours leur droit au Canada.....
>
>L'anglais, apres tout, est la seule langue du monde qui monopolise un
aussi
> grand continent!
> Les francophones leur demandent de considerer le Quebec comme leur pays.
> Mais ils en sont incapables.
>
Ils en sont plus capables que tu ne l'imagine...
Mais ils choisissent de considerer le Canada comme leur pays et le Quebec
comme leur province..
Ce qui est aussi leur droit...
>
> Les jeunes sont un peu mieux... Mais ils ont herite de la mentalite de
> superiorite de leurs parents. C'est triste."
>
Encore des balivernes
> <snip>.
>
> Au Quebec, on a decide de faire de notre langue le francais, et on a
> decide que c'etait important. Ensuite, on a pris des mesures pour
> que cette decision soit refletee par la societe.
>
Et certaines de ces ces mesures sentent le racisme....
>
> A chaque fois qu'une loi ne satisfait pas aux preferences d'un groupe
> minoritaire, celui-ci se plaint que cette loi limite injustement ses
libertes.
> Les fumeurs utilisent le meme argument pour avoir le droit de fumer.
>
C'est ce qu'on appelle une democratie. C'est pas le meilleur system au
moins.
Mais c'est mieux que tous les autres systems...
>
> Quand les activites d'une minorite sont jugees dangereuses au bien-etre
> de la majorite, cette majorite met en place des mesures pour limiter la
> liberte de la minorite.
Ah oui c'est tres dangeureux d'afficher en anglais. Ces lettre nocives
peuvent tuer un rat a dix pas... :-)
>
> C'est tout simplement la democratie. La pre-eminence de l'anglais
> dans le passe recent a Montreal, ainsi que la mentalite de superiorite de
la
> minorite anglophone constituent un danger au bien-etre de la majorite des
> Quebecois. Le peuple a donc agi.
>
Tu sais, a force de repeter que les anglophones ont une mentalite de
superirorite, tu me fais a croire que tu as une mentalite d'inferiorite...
Non le peuple n'a pas agi. Des politiciens ont agis...
Il n'y a pas eu de referendum vis-a-vis le Bill 101...
>
>. Et tu peux etre sur, mon petit Saly,
>
Tiens un commentaire qui surement te fais croire que tu est superieur...
>
> Il y a un honneur et un respect a avoir pour un peuple comme le Quebec
..
> .
Je pensais que le Quebec est un lieu geographique
>
> <snip>
> Les Etats-Unis, voila un autre peuple non-hypocrite qui sait affirmer sa
> culture aux nouveaux-venus.
>
Sauf si les anglophones de Montreal se laissent influencer pas ces
Americains
je te repete tes paroles
>
> et The Gazette leur presente la culture populaire americaine.
>
> Nous allons continuer a affirmer la notre au Quebec, et il n'y a
heureusement
> pas grand chose que tu puisses y faire. Encore plus heureusement, il n'y
a
> rien de contestable a ces gestes non plus.
Et moi je vais continuer a demontrer la malhonnetete implicite dans ton
attitude et ton approche..
Le racisme est une tres mechante chose.
Mais elle existe au Quebec (et aussi a Boston)
Le fait que tu le cache un peu mieux que d'atres ne fait de te rendre plus
dangereux que les autres
Mais, pour tout ca, ca te laisse toujours raciste,
Van
Vincent Lupien <vhlu...@mit.edu> wrote:
> Although services in English may not be to the satisfaction of all English
> speakers, the rating of these services should be made based on our best available
> standard: Ontario. Services in French in Ontario were not to my satisfaction because:
> WITH FEW EXCEPTIONS, I received unilingual English service in BOTH Federal and Provincial
> Government Offices for the 15 years during which I inhabited Ontario.
> Compared with Ontario, Quebec services the minority community excellently.
It was your problem that you did not get French service in the Federal
Govwernment Offices. You just have to ask. You are entitled to those
services by LAW so don't get so pompus about how good Quebec is to the
English. Number one the ratio of French vs vs English in Ontario and
English vs vs Fench in Quebec are not the same.
Quebec is so good to theEnglish tha King Lucien is considering taking
away the rights of the medical field to speak English to their
patients just like the PQ Government has taken the right of the Quebec
public service to speak english. At least the Federal Government has
not gone that far. In fact if you knew anything about the dual
language policy you would know the feds encourage French.
>Everytime you make an attempt at dishonestly discrediting the Quebec government,
>I will be on your tail.
And I will be more then on your tail when you lie about the Canadian
potection of the French fact in the rest of Canada.
Van Hayden
Vincent Lupien
J'aimerais commencer par te dire qu'etant marie a une canadienne-anglaise d'origine chinoise,
je me moque de tes accusations de racisme. De plus, le fait que je sois a MIT n'a rien a voir
avec nos discussions. Cela m'etonne que tant de gens aient utilise le mot "MIT" dans leurs
reponses a mes messages. Peut-etre que cela vous intimide...
Les fumeurs se plaignent de discrimination, eux aussi. La fumee, c'est modestement desagreable,
et ce n'est pas immediatement mauvais pour la sante. Des etudes ont demontre qu'apres bien des
annees la probabilite de maladie augmente. La societe moderne favorise que l'on limite les
droits des fumeurs. La toute simple realite: les droits que tu t'imagines
posseder, c'est-a-dire le droit en tant que minorite de t'imposer a la majorite sur des plans que
la majorite trouve indispensables n'ont jamais existe et n'existeront jamais.
La realite au Quebec, c'est que nous avons une culture populaire et que celle-ci est menacee
par l'hyperculture americaine/canadienne-anglaise. Nous sommes tous les deux d'accord qu'en ce
moment le francais est un choix moins populaire que l'anglais.
Ceci donne deux resultats:
i) Une fragmentation de la societe Quebecoise selon l'axe anglais/francais, et une fragmentation
culturelle qui correspond exacement a la fragmentation selon la langue. Cette fragmentation retient
la culture francaise et l'empeche de prendre sa place en tant qu'hyperculture, tandis que le cote
anglais, lui, devient une extension Quebecoise de l'hyperculture americaine multiculturelle.
ii) L'augmentation de la population anglophone due a l'immigration, ainsi que la faiblesse
relative du francais exacerbee par i) ci-haut, representent des menaces serieuses a la survie du francais.
Dans ce contexte, et seuleument dans ce contexte, il est acceptable pour la majorite de prendre son
avenir en main et de limiter les droits de la population de la facon la plus minime possible tout
en guarantissant que l'objectif final soit rencontre. Cet objectif est de fonder une hyperculture assez
forte et assez attrayante au Quebec sur le francais, pour pouvoir se permettre un jour d'enlever
les restrictions linguistiques.
Qu'est-ce qui est important a la societe? Quelles mesures la societe a-t-elle prise pour limiter les
droits des gens afin de proteger ces valeurs?
FACTEUR IMPORTANT A LA SOCIETE LIMITE DES DROITS DES INDIVIDUS
La securite - Port d'armes
- Limites de vitesse sur les autoroutes
- Ceintures de securite
- Limite sur le nombre maximal de personnes dans les
ascenseurs, les lieux publics
L'esthetique citadine - Lois de Zonage
- Restrictions de construction: hauteur, grandeur
- Lois anti-bruit entre 11:00 PM et 7:00 AM
La souverainete - Lois internationales affirmant l'autorite des pays
a l'interieur de leurs frontieres, et par ce fait,
limitant les droits d'autres pays a l'interieur de
ces frontieres.
La culture, l'identite nationale - Declaration des langues officielles du pays
- Programmes d'integration a la societe pour les immigrants
- Lois linguistiques
- Loi contre le brulage du drapeau national (USA)
- Lois contre la pornographie
- Lois regissant l'usage de "sacres" a la television
- Lois contre la propagande de fausses idees (ex: ceux qui
pretendent que le Holocaust n'a jamais existe: Ernst Zundel)
- Lois contre la propagande d'idees haineuses chez les enfants par
les enseignants (anti-semitisme, etc.)
La productivite personelle - Education obligatoire (jusqu'a un certain age)
(c-a-d productivite pour l'etat) - Lois anti-drogues
- Creation d'un systeme qui valorise les gens selon leurs efforts et
leurs talents (versus un systeme qui recompense tout le monde egalement)
- Restrictions sur l'alcool
Sante - Lois sut le tabac, la drogues, l'alcool
- Quarantaine requise pour certaines maladies contagieuses
- Lois contre le suicide, l'euthanasie
Nous ne sommes pas en desaccord sur beaucoup.
Nous sommes tous d'accord sur l'importance des libertes individuelles. Et je crois que nous sommes
tous d'accord que ces libertes ne sont pas et ne doivent pas etre infinies, ni au Quebec, ni ailleurs.
Nous sommes en desaccord sur QUELLES libertes il faut limiter.
Vous pouvez pleurer et pleurer, et traiter quiconque vous voulez de racistes. Cela vous place au meme
rang que bien des gens dans la societe qui sont mecontents que leurs droits soient limites.
Il n'y a RIEN de mal, je repete, RIEN de mal aux lois linguistiques telles qu'elles existent au Quebec.
Elles ne limitent meme pas la PRESENCE de l'anglais sur les ecritaux. Elles respectent la communaute
historique anglophone du Quebec en leur GUARANTISSANT des services gouvernementaux en anglais. Elles
n'empechent ni les immigrants, ni les anglophones de passer a leurs enfants leur langue, leurs habitudes,
leur religion soit a la maison ou par l'entremise de cours le dimanche, par exemple. (Dans le cas des anglophones au
Quebec depuis longtemps, les guaranties sont encore plus grandes)
Les anglos de Montreal, allez-y, ecrivez aux Nations-Unies pour vous plaindre de votre persecution,
tout comme les fumeurs, l'entrepreneur qui n'a pas pu construire ou il voulait, ou Ernst Zundel.
Ils vont vous rire au visage! Et moi aussi je vous ris au visage.
Ha ha.
Vincent Lupien
What I wrote may be inconvenient to you, but it wasn't a lie.
As a francophone in English Canada, I rarely received service in
French in spite of "asking". The truth is it always took much more than
just "asking". It usually takes waiting longer or calling back the next
day, but it takes more than "asking".
Once, on a visit to the Maritimes, I decided to test "Official Bilingualism"
by asking to be served in French at a Customs station between Maine USA and
New Brunswick. When I requested that I be served in French, the agent on
duty told me as best as she could with her limited knowledge of French that
there was no Bilingual agent on duty at the time and that I would have to wait
for one. She really wanted to help and you could see that she was really distressed
about not being able to help. It was touching, and I felt like just speaking English, but I thought
I should continue the experiment just to see what a unilingual Francophone who
was just cutting through the US on a long drive from, say, Western Quebec would
have experienced.
Over an hour later, I was still sitting on a bench in the Customs office. I felt
uncomfortable. They felt uncomfortable. Finally, I was asked to come to the desk
so that I could speak to the bilingual agent who was on the phone from his cottage.
Things progressed clumsily along, as the phone was passed from me to the Customs agent
in front of me and the Bilingual agent translated from his cottage.
In my 15 years as a Franco-Ontarian, these kinds of events were commonplace. It wears
you down after a while. You feel as if your rights to function as a francophone in
society are only artificial. And in the end, they were only artificial, as one would
expect them to be given the reality of the English majority.
To argue that English Quebecers are worse off than Franco-Ontarians is ridiculous.
They enjoy bilingual services both at the provincial and federal levels, services
which are far superior in reliability than those of Ontario.
The English Quebecers who post most vehemently on these newsgroups are blowing their
situation outof proportion and taking advantage of their common language with the rest
of Canadato distort reality. I'm glad I speak English and I'm glad I speak it well so that
I can defend francophones all over Canada against propaganda such as yours.
Vincent Lupien
MIT
Cambridge, MA
I was held up at Customs between New-Brunswick (a bilingual province) and
Maine, USA because they were not able to find anyone to talk to me in
French.
After waiting for over an hour, I simply told them that
Tony Kondaks
JFL <j...@presse-ouest.mb.ca> wrote:
: Take schools, for example. Here in Manitoba (and Ontario as well), it
: has been forbiden for decades to have french schools. Despite this fact,
: french is still alive in Manitoba and spoken by about 60,000 people
: here.
Manitoba and Ontario are perfect examples of what I mean.
When the Manitoba School crisis happened in the 1890s, there were attempts
to use constitutional tools (disallowance, section 93 of the BNA Act) to
prevent the laws that took francophone rights away. This was the
responsibility and obligation of the federal government to do so.
A Quebec francophone Prime Minister Laurier, elected on the strength of
francophone voters in Quebec refused to use all of the tools available to
him to help his brethren.
Georges-Etienne Cartier, although not a prime-minister at the time, but
weilding enormous influence in the gofernment of the day, also worked
against helping the Catholic (partly francophone) minority of New
Brunswick in the 1870s when that provincial government took away that
province's rights.
Shame.
: Some anglophones are still reluctant, but mentalities are changing.
: "Rhodesians" are disapearing.
"Rhodesians" aren't disappearing. They are alive and well in the persons
who support Bill 101.
Tony Kondaks
Vincent Lupien <vhlu...@mit.edu> wrote:
: La realite au Quebec, c'est que nous avons une culture populaire et que celle-ci est menacee
: par l'hyperculture americaine/canadienne-anglaise. Nous sommes tous les deux d'accord qu'en ce
: moment le francais est un choix moins populaire que l'anglais.
Vincent. French is a language, it is speech. It is not a person.
Languages live, die, expand, gain speakers, lose speakers, mutate, change
into other languages and if there is one constant we can say about
languages it is that they are NEVER static and unchanging for long. Sorry
to say it, but French may someday die out (hey, English may some day die
out!). Indeed, one versin of English died out with the conquest (not the
conquest of the French on the plains of Abraham but the NORMAN conquest of
England...which resulted in about 20-30% of today's English language words
having their immediate source from FRENCH...)
Is French less popular than English? Yes, it is. English, for whatever
reason, has become the lingua franca of the 20th and, probably, the 21st
century.
But please don't try to convince anybody that French is in danger and,
therefore, needs extraordinary (i.e. violation of minority and individual
rights) protection.
There are, approximately, 300 languages spoken in North America. Of those
300, only 3 languages enjoy the support of official language status,
tax-money support, and numbers of speakers many times more than the other
297 languages. Those three languages are:
English
Spanish
French
If North America was represented by a human body, English, Spanish and
French would be located around the eyes or the top of the head and the
others would be around the ankles and knees. Indeed, some would be around
the heel. There are about 50 aboriginal languages in North America that
have several thousand or several hundreds and, some, only 10-50 speakers
left. Some of these linguistic groups would LOVE to have 1% of 1% of the
6,000,000+ speakers that French enjoys in Quebec and the rest of North
America (hey, Haiti has 5,000,000+ French speakers...but they aren't "pur
laine" enough for YOU, perhaps).
So, please, Vincent, stop with the propaganda and stop with the crocodile
tears...
Tony Kondaks
Vincent Lupien <vhlu...@mit.edu> wrote:
: Dans ce contexte, et seuleument dans ce contexte, il est acceptable pour la majorite de prendre son
: avenir en main et de limiter les droits de la population de la facon la plus minime possible tout
: en guarantissant que l'objectif final soit rencontre. Cet objectif est de fonder une hyperculture assez
: forte et assez attrayante au Quebec sur le francais, pour pouvoir se permettre un jour d'enlever
: les restrictions linguistiques.
Vincent, your hyperaryan culture frightens me.
Tony Kondaks
Vincent Lupien <vhlu...@mit.edu> wrote:
: Il n'y a RIEN de mal, je repete, RIEN de mal aux lois linguistiques
telles qu'elles existent au Quebec. : Elles ne limitent meme pas la
PRESENCE de l'anglais sur les ecritaux. Elles respectent la communaute :
historique anglophone du Quebec en leur GUARANTISSANT des services
gouvernementaux en anglais. Elles : n'empechent ni les immigrants, ni les
anglophones de passer a leurs enfants leur langue, leurs habitudes, : leur
religion soit a la maison ou par l'entremise de cours le dimanche, par
exemple. (Dans le cas des anglophones au : Quebec depuis longtemps, les
guaranties sont encore plus grandes)
Vincent, with all due respect, you simply don't know what you are talking
about.
"Presence of English" (and other languages) IS restricted "sur les
ecritaux" (if by "ecritaux" you mean commercial expression such as
billboards)...and, indeed, just by putting into law, as Bill 86 does, the
ability to CHANGE a speaker's right to express in a language other than
French ...that this ability is GIVEN to the Quebec conseil executif
(cabinet) is an ENORMOUS violation of my rights.
Guaranteed services? Bullshit. When Quebec has TWO official languages --
English and French -- guaranteed in the constitution, as was the intent in
1867, then we can agree on the word "guaranteed". NO provincial
government service -- except for the ability to speak in the National
Assembly in English, in Quebec courts, and in VERY restricted race-based
situations, English in schools -- is guaranteed in Quebec (theyse points
are in the constitution). There are some additional sevices but they are
guaranteed ONLY by bill(s) passed by the National Assembly, passed into
law by a majority vote that can just as easily be repealed (as we have
seen it done) by a majority vote.
And , please, don't insult me and other readers by talking about
immigrants: they DO NOT have the same rights as other Canadians in Quebec
when it comes to freely choosing the school they can attend...and neither
the Quebec nor Canadian charters of rights allow reasonable limits in this
area (so, at least, on this point you can throw out your "no freedoms are
infinite" argument).
: Les anglos de Montreal, allez-y, ecrivez aux Nations-Unies pour vous plaindre de votre persecution,
: tout comme les fumeurs, l'entrepreneur qui n'a pas pu construire ou il voulait, ou Ernst Zundel.
We only went to the U.N. once Quebec went back on its promise...and spat
on Rene Levesque at the same time! We tried to "keep it in the family"
but it was the Quebec Government that FORCED us to go to the U.N.
When we first complained to Levesque in 1977 about Bill 101 he said: hey,
it may not be constitutionally valid...why don't you go to the courts and
and see what they say and then we'll straighten everything out. So we
went to court...patiently! 12 years later -- in December 1988 -- the
Supreme Court of Canada confirmed what all the lower Quebec courts had
said: Bill 101's language of commercial expression provisions were a
violation of freedom of expression and equality rights. And what did
QUEBEC do? Renege on Levesque's promise and passed the "notwithstanding"
clause...so we HAD no choice but to seek redress with the U.N....which we
will continue to do with the even more outrageous language of education
provisions of Bill 101 (the race law I referred to).
: Ils vont vous rire au visage! Et moi aussi je vous ris au visage.
: Ha ha.
...go ahead and laugh, my little hyperaryan.
Tony Kondaks
Vincent Lupien <vhlu...@mit.edu> wrote:
: Ce que tu dis, c'est que les immigrants percoivent le francais comme
: une reduction de leurs opportunites,
...and if they do, whose business is it but theirs?
You know, Vincent, if the aboriginal population of what is now the
territory of Quebec had the same attitude when the first French settlers
arrived as you fun-lovin' supporters of
Bill 101 have now, they would have banned and/or discouraged any other
language other than what was then the majority language, which was an
aboriginal language.
vincent, you are attending MIT. I assume, then, that you are quite smart.
Why don't you apply the principle of individual freedom to something you
have in mind you want to write BEFORE you write it, kinda use it as a
filter...and then see what comes out.
: (et tu le percois comme ca
: aussi car tu trouves que le francais est un "carcan"), et que
: les moyens qu'on a utilise au Quebec pour prevenir que tous ces
: immigrants se ruent vers l'anglais sont inacceptables.
: Ce que tu trouverais acceptable, donc, ce serait que les immigrants
: arrivent, et choisissent leur langue (ce qui veut dire, pour toi, l'anglais).
...and what, my dear man, is wrong with that? Immigrants should be able
to choose, in Quebec, to speak ONLY English, if that is their prerogative,
and send their kids ONLY to English school, if that is their prerogative
(of course, if that limits their kids opportunities in a province in which
80% of the people speak French, so be it...the right to make stupid choice
in life is part and parcel of the concept of freedom...)
: Ton dialogue expose clairement que tu vois le francais comme
: une langue inferieure que nul nouveau venu ne voudrait choisir.
...and your words clearly reveal that you feel it is perfectly all right
to impose a majority culture and language on free people...which is a more
disdainful expression?
: En fait, tu te consideres superieur en tant qu'anglophone et
: tu verrais la pre-eminence de l'anglais a Montreal comme etant juste.
...hey, English is the international language of commerce and
communication...English, the marketplace may decide -- and not some
elected officials in Quebec City -- SHOULD be the pre-eminant language in
Montreal. Indeed, it may mean that French takes a back seat...so what!?
THAT may be determined by how strongly francophones want to keep their
language alive in the marketplace...but it should be a function of free
individuals deciding, not some government law or dictum (and I don't care
if 99% of the population supports the law: the individual is supreme when
it comes to freedom of speech).
: La plupart des anglophones les plus vocaux sur le sujet du Quebec
: ressemblent a la description de Ray Conlogue, un ecrivain Torontois qui
: habite Montreal depuis 5 ans: (Auteur de: Impossible Nation, The longing for
: homeland in Canada and Quebec)
: "Cette minorite-la a une mentalite schizophrene. Elle refuse la realite. C'est
: une minorite locale qui fait partie d'une majorite nationale. Ces gens vivent
: au Quebec mais ne regardent pas les emissions de television les plus
: populaires, ne lisent pas les journaux francophones, et The Gazette leur
: presente la culture populaire americaine. Ils ont peu de rapports avec la
: culture francophone qui les entoure. Pour resister a l'assimilation, ils n'ont
: qu'a zapper. L'anglais, apres tout, est la seule langue du monde qui
: monopolise un aussi grand continent! Les francophones leur demandent de
: considerer le Quebec comme leur pays. Mais ils en sont incapables. Les jeunes
: sont un peu mieux... Mais ils ont herite de la mentalite de superiorite de
: leurs parents. C'est triste."
What is sad is that an intelligent person like yourself puts the tyranny
of the majority ahead of individual rights. Shame.
: Les libertes humaines ne sont pas infinies. Au Canada, la majorite est
: d'accord pour de grandes restrictions sur le port d'armes, restrictions qui
: seraient considerees inacceptables dans certains etats americains. Aux etats
: unis, ceux qui brulent le drapeau americain sont mis en prison.
...no, they are not. The Supreme Court of the U.S. has already decided
(5-4 decision if memory serves me right) that burnign the U.S. flag is
constitutionally protected free speech.
Au Canada, on
: confisque les bateaux des etrangers qui pechent trop de poisson.
: Au Quebec, on a decide de faire de notre langue le francais, et on a
: decide que c'etait important. Ensuite, on a pris des mesures pour
: que cette decision soit refletee par la societe.
...and no one is against the preservation and promotion of the French
language, which can be wonderfully accomplished while respecting
individual rights, which Bill 101 DOES NOT PRESENTLY DO ON SEVERAL LEVELS!
Tony Kondaks
Librairie info-detente <ca...@abacom.com> wrote:
: Tony Kondaks <tkon...@primenet.com> a repondu a mon posting qui suit:
: >: Oui, Vincent, il est _capoté de meme_.
: >David, do you find it offensive or uncomfortable that I refer to Bill 101
: >as a "race" or "hate" law?
: >
: >A "race" law it certainly is (remarques haineuses coupées)
^^^^^^^^^
...just because someone disagrees with you doesn't NECESSARILY and
AUTOMATICALLY make his remarks "hateful"
: M.Kondaks:
: Nous avons lu toutes tes remarques semblables cet été passé, y compris ton aveu que t'as
: grossièrement exageré.
Thank you for remembering. However, I take issue with the word
"exaggeration".
: Meme toi tu ne crois pas que les lois linguitiques du Québec sont sur
: un pied d'égalité avec des lois apartheidiennes de l'ancien Afrique du sud.
...no, actually, since Mandela's emergence, South Africa has moved AHEAD
of Quebec...
: Nous sommes devenus tous conscients pendant ton absence bien meritée de SCQ, que même la Cour
: suprème du Canada (les juges tous nommés par Ottawa) a donné son aval a la loi 101 tel qu'elle
: est actuellement.
: Donc, ça se peut bien que tu considère que les juges de la Cour suprème soient racistes, eux
: aussi (ils le sont, selon la définition de ton frère jumeau Wes). Je sais que tu es également
: d'avis que les lois scolaires du Québec ET des autres provinces ET la clause 23 de la Charte
: canadienne des droits et libertées sont racistes, eux aussi.
The Supreme Court of Canada is not possessed of papal infallibility. I
agree with them when they make a decision which I believe is right and
disagree with them when they make a decision I believe is wrong.
I believe they made a terrible, wrong, hateful and -- yes -- racist
decision when they upheld an order-in-councel by MacKenzie King right
after WWII which would have expulled CANADIAN-BORN and NON-CANADIAN BORN
Canadian citizens of Japanese ancestry.
Some of the things they have said about Bill 101 I agree with, some I
don't.
What I DO attempt to do, David, is document my admittedly strongly-voiced
opinions whenever I do make them.
Gilles Rioux
Peter S. Saly <Pe...@saly.com> écrivait :
> Vincent Lupien wrote
> > .
> > <snip>
> >
> > Here is what I meant:
> >
> > English speakers in Quebec are spoiled in contrast with francophones
> outside Quebec,
> > and I like that the greater status of French in Quebec is felt by all
> members of Quebec
> > society. I hope it will continue.
> >
>
> Vincent,
>
> Thank you for voicing so clearly what non-french Quebecois have known all
> along about separatists like you...
>
> Namely, to rephrase the above paragraph:
>
> Since, francophones outside Quebec are worse off than Anglophones within
> Quebec, it is justified for the anglophones in Quebec to lose the rights
> and perogatives they have enjoyed until now...
>
> This is the bottom line of the original Bill 1 and Bill 101...
Complètement faux.
La loi 101 a été mise en place pour que cesse l'érosion du français au
Québec. Durant les années 60 à Montréal, le taux d'anglicisation des
immigrants *et* des francophones dans la région de Montréal était
comparable à ce qu'il est présentement dans le reste du Canada, i.e.
très élevé. La perpétuation de cette tendance aurait mené à un
affaiblissement tel de la position du français qu'il aurait pratiquement
disparu de l'île en quelques décennies.
Certains ont comparé les inconvénients vécus par les anglophones à
l'holocauste et continuent à le faire. Est-il besoin d'expliquer le
ridicule d'une telle affirmation?
D'autres, comme Peter, y voient une intention malicieuse. Si c'était le
cas, les rues de Montréal seraient pleines de gens qui s'insulteraient
et s'échangeraient des gnons constamment. Au contraire, la civilité qui
marque les rapports entre les deux communautés infirme toute
interprétation semblable.
--
Gilles Rioux, Montréal, Québec
presentix
jc <co...@interlog.com> wrote in article <5g6j13$1...@news.interlog.com>...
>
> Since when are Francophones outside Quebec worse off than Anglophones
inside
> Quebec? There are no laws to limit what language people speak and what
> language people put on signs etc. outside of Quebec. These abuses of
human
> rights only occur within Quebec.
>
I have to object to that argument. There are no laws to limit languages
used in
other provinces because English is by no means threatened anyware. Although
I
object to current Quebec language laws it is not fair to compare the faith
of
anglophones in Quebec to that of francophones outside Quebec.
Francophones outside Quebec are still fighting just to get fair
representation. For
example, in New-Brunswick francophones represent over 30% of the
population.
So why not 30% of the ressources? Of senior government jobs? Of French
presence on commercial signs?
Go to Moncton, N.B. (40% French) and look for the French signs and
services...
Good luck!
P.S. Acadians are still fighting for their rights. Maybe all could learn
from their
efforts... they do it without name calling or rhetoric, a lesson that
should be
learned by both Quebec separatists and their opponents.
Francois Bourgeois
Tony Kondaks
presentix <pres...@videotron.ca> wrote:
: Francophones outside Quebec are still fighting just to get fair
: representation. For
: example, in New-Brunswick francophones represent over 30% of the
: population.
: So why not 30% of the ressources?
What do you mean by resources? You mean government expenditures? How can
these be statistically divided between francophones and anglophones
(except in areas such as schools which are clearly delineated).
: Of senior government jobs?
Hmmm...you've used the qualifier "senior"...what percentage of ALL
government jobs are held by francophones? In Quebec, 12% of the
population is anglophone and they have less than 1% of the civil service
jobs. Wasn't it the Confedeation of Regions Party a while back ago
claiming that francophones in New Brunswick have a HIGHER percentage of
civil service jobs than their percentage in the general population (...and
I'm just asking, I am not sure exactly what the situation is).
: Of French
: presence on commercial signs?
: Go to Moncton, N.B. (40% French) and look for the French signs and
: services...
I haven't been to Moncton in about 10 years but when I was there I
remember it as being the most bilingual city I was ever in...I can't
remember what exact percentage of signs were in English and French but,
certainly, virtually every single shop I went to I heard both English and
French spoken. I remember it as an ideal Canadian city in that sense...
IF, as you claim, in Moncton there isan unhealthy plethora of unilingual
English signs, are the francophones:
1) unhappy about it?
2) if the answer to (1) is "YES", are they still giving those businesses
their patronage or are they telling the store owners and managers that
they want French signs or else they will lose their spend their money
elsewhere?
: Good luck!
: P.S. Acadians are still fighting for their rights.
Which rights exactly, Francois? If you are talking just about the
New Brunswick Acadians, which you appear to be doing, and not Nova
Scotian Acadians...
You aren't assuming, are you, that private commercial signs in French or
service by a private business is a "right", are you? Or are you
referring to government services by the provincial government and
quasi-public services, such as hospitals, higher education, etc.
Please clarify because my understanding (and I am open to be corrected) is
that New Brunswick francophones enjoy French as an official language in
that province.
Peter S. Saly
Gilles Rioux wrote in article
>
> <snip>
> La loi 101 a été mise en place pour que cesse l'érosion du français au
> Québec. Durant les années 60 à Montréal, le taux d'anglicisation des
> immigrants *et* des francophones dans la région de Montréal était
> comparable à ce qu'il est présentement dans le reste du Canada, i.e.
> très élevé. La perpétuation de cette tendance aurait mené à un
> affaiblissement tel de la position du français qu'il aurait pratiquement
> disparu de l'île en quelques décennies.
Au moins, c'est l'excuse que tu as choisi de croire.
Mais quand une personne est restreinte dans le choix de langue d'education
basee sur le pays d'origine, ou la langue etudie par le parent au primaire
et secondaire,
Alors, le bill 101 se qualifie comme une loi raciste....
De toute facon, meme avec le bill 101, la deterioration de la qualite de
francais parle et ecrit au Quebec est tel, que visiblement cette loi
raciste n'etait pas la bonne solution....
>
> Certains ont comparé les inconvénients vécus par les anglophones à
> l'holocauste et continuent à le faire. Est-il besoin d'expliquer le
> ridicule d'une telle affirmation?
>
Je suis d'accord, qu'une comparaison avec l'holocauste est extremement
ridicule.
Mais, le reduction de la population est le resultat direct d'action legale
et autre au Quebec
Et ce resultat a ete atteint par des actions qui ne peuvent pas etres
considirees comme etant respectueux des non francophones du Quebec
> D'autres, comme Peter, y voient une intention malicieuse. Si c'était le
> cas, les rues de Montréal seraient pleines de gens qui s'insulteraient
> et s'échangeraient des gnons constamment. Au contraire, la civilité qui
> marque les rapports entre les deux communautés infirme toute
> interprétation semblable.
>
Le fait que les deux communautes sont majoritairement civils envers l'un
l'autre ne change pas que la restriction forcee sur les anglophones a ete,
en fait, sinon en intention, malicieuse.
Aussi, ceux qui ont imposes le bill 101 n'ont jamais represente la majorite
de la population sur le plan separatiste...
Sinon, la separation serait un fait aujourd'hui...
Et de temps a autre, les attitudes malicieuse sortent des bouches memes de
ceux qui sont les plus qualifies de ne pas exprimer ces attitudes (voire
Parizeau apres le referendum...)
Peter
Vincent Lupien
Tony Kondaks wrote:
>
> Vincent, your hyperaryan culture frightens me.
>
I think calling me and other Quebec francophones "racists"
has lost its thrill value by now. Don't you? When arguments
have to fall on such accusations, it is clear there is nothing
being said.
You are afraid for no reason.
Tony Kondaks
Vincent Lupien <vhlu...@mit.edu> wrote:
: Tony Kondaks wrote:
: >
: > Vincent, your hyperaryan culture frightens me.
: >
: I think calling me and other Quebec francophones "racists"
: has lost its thrill value by now. Don't you? When arguments
: have to fall on such accusations, it is clear there is nothing
: being said.
What I call racist is Bill 101 and I will continue to call it that until
those provisions in it that utilize "race" as a basis of discrimination
are repealed.
If it has host its "thrill value", so be it.
If you think that arguments are falsely falling on such accusations, why
don't you ask me to back up my accusations? Then you -- and the other
readers -- can decide for yourselves whether I am justified in calling
Bill 101 racist.
: You are afraid for no reason.
I AM afraid. And I am ESPECIALLY afraid when well educated people like
yourself (MIT and all) start talking about hypercultures and
hyperlanguages.
If I have hit a nerve by calling you a hyperaryan, then good. That is
a sign that you are on the first step of your 12 step program to recovery.
: Vincent Lupien
: MIT
: Cambridge, MA
--
Luc Richard
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------2CD21023D73
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Peter S. Saly wrote:
[coupure...]
> Et de temps a autre, les attitudes malicieuse sortent des bouches memes de
> ceux qui sont les plus qualifies de ne pas exprimer ces attitudes (voire
> Parizeau apres le referendum...)
>
> Peter
Lis ça, mon Peter, ça va te faire comprendre...
1) Que ton attitude de tenter de culpabilisé les francophones du pays du
Québec
ça ne marche plus.
2) Que le réveil des moutons endormis est pour bientôt.
--------------2CD21023D73
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; name="jlegault.txt"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="jlegault.txt"
L'HOMO ETHNICUS CANADIENSIS par Jos=E9e Legault [Le Devoir 12/03/97]
Depuis le 30 octobre 1995, =EAtes-vous hant=E9 par le mot de Jacques Pari=
zeau =
sur <<l'argent et des votes ethniques>>? Que vous soyez en accord ou non =
avec lui, vous sentez-vous coupable par association? Avez-vous des =
cauchemars o=F9 Mordechai Richler et Esther Delisle luttent contre la hor=
de =
de clones de Lionel-Groulx? Croyez-vous la propagande f=E9d=E9raliste =
voulant que le projet souverainiste soit <<ethniciste>> et raciste, =
et le Canada un mod=E8le de tol=E9rance?
Si vous avez r=E9pondu oui, vous avez besoin d'aide! Comme d'autres Qu=E9=
b=E9cois, =
vous =EAtes tomb=E9 dans la marmite de l'autoculpabilisation quand vous =EA=
tiez =
petit. Et vous ignorez s=FBrement tout de l'<<obsesssion ethnique>> qu'on=
=
retrouve du c=F4t=E9 du Canada et =E0 la racine m=EAme de sa culture poli=
tique.
Mais rassurez-vous, il existe un rem=E8de =E0 vos maux. IL se nomme la =
connaissance de l'histoire et l'analyse politique. Comme premier geste =
de gu=E9rison, vous pouvez lire le dernier ouvrage de Guy Bouthillier, =
intitul=E9 justement l'Obsession Ethnique- un essai d=E9mystificateur qui=
=
vous en apprendra beaucoup sur l'omnipr=E9sence de l'ethnicisme, du =
racisme et de la francophobie =E0 travers l'histoire du Canada. =C0 l'heu=
re =
o=F9 la political correctness =E9touffe la libert=E9 d'expression sur ces=
=
questions, le professeur Bouthillier remet les pendules =E0 l'heure.
De fait, au Canada, tout est marqu=E9 du sceau de l'ethnicit=E9: la =
politique, les m=E9dias, les chaires universitaires, les organisations =
communautaires, les =E9coles, les h=F4pitaux, etc. Guy Bouthillier avance=
=
que cette obsession remonte jusqu'=E0 la conqu=EAte et qu'elle est =
l'h=E9ritage d'une culture politique britannique s=E9gr=E9gationniste. =
Ce qui explique- et l'auteur en donne de nombreux exemples-que ce fut =
le f=E9d=E9ral qui adopta les politiques les plus racistes au pays.
Encore <<obs=E9d=E9>> dans les ann=E9es 1970, le Canada passera du racism=
e =
au culte =E0 outrance des origines ethniques et raciales- deux c=F4t=E9s =
d'une m=EAme m=E9daille. Encore aujourd'hui, on confond l'acceptation
des diff=E9rences ethniques avec l'obsession de celles-ci.
Guy Bouthillier d=E9crit aussi comment le Canada entretient les =
diff=E9rences ethniques pour mieux noyer celle du Qu=E9bec. =
<<Ce sera la diversit=E9 contre la dualit=E9!>> IL =E9tait donc =
dans la nature des choses qu'Ottawa impose le multiculturalisme officiel,=
=
l'ultime n=E9gation de l'existence du peuple qu=E9b=E9cois et sa r=E9duct=
ion =
au statut d'<<ethnie>>. Et apr=E8s on se demandera pourquoi les souverain=
istes =
peinent =E0 s'adjoindre l'appui des non-francophones alors que des =
f=E9d=E9ralistes s'ent=EAtent =E0 leur nier l'existence m=EAme du peuple =
qu=E9b=E9cois!
L'etnicisme canadien s'est donc av=E9r=E9 une arme efficace dans la lutte=
=
contre les souverainistes. =C0 cet =E9gard, Guy Bouthillier souligne avec=
=
quelle adresse les forces du NON manient la <<politique ethnique>> ou =
l'appel =E0 l'ethnie comme justification d'un comportement politique ou =
=E9lectoral. On peut d'ailleurs s'attendre =E0 ce qu'Ottawa poursuivre =
cette strat=E9gie avec assiduit=E9, avant et pendant le prochain r=E9f=E9=
rendum.
Tout cela tient en effet de l'obsession: <<Pour le Canada, le monde =
n'est pas un th=E9atre de souverainet=E9: c'est un festival d'ethnies!>> =
ON comprend mieux ce r=E9flexe lorsque m. Bouthillier =E9num=E8re quelque=
s =
=E9pisodes moins glorieux de son histoire. On pense ici =E0 la =
<<guerre d=E9mographique>> qu'ont livr=E9e les Anglais aux Canadiens fran=
=E7ais =
d=E8s la fin du XVIII i=E8me si=E8cle. Question de <<mieux noyer la popul=
ation =
canadienne fran=E7aise>>, pour reprendre le mot prof=E9r=E9 en 1810 par l=
e =
juge en chef du Bas-Canada, Jonathan Sewell. ON pense aux th=E9ories de =
sup=E9riorit=E9 raciale du peuple anglais d=E9fendues jadis par des polit=
iciens =
canadiens anglais et l'imposition d'une politique d'immigration =
<<WHITE ONLY>>. On pense =E0 la pendaison de Riel et =E0 la loi f=E9d=E9r=
ale =
sur les Indiens
On pense =E0 l'assimilation des francophones hors Qu=E9bec, On pense =E0 =
l'internement de Canadiens d'origines japonaise et italienne pendant =
la Seconde Guerre Mondiale. On pense au refus de Mackenzie King =
d'accueillir des r=E9fugi=E9s juifs menac=E9s par l'Holocauste. PLus r=E9=
cemment =
on peut penser =E0 l'attisement du mouvement partitionniste. Mais pour =
les f=E9d=E9ralistes, ces exemples d'<<intol=E9rance>> sont nettement moi=
ns =
int=E9ressant que Lionel Groulx ou le F.L.Q....
L'obsession ethnique, c'est aussi le d=E9nigrement des francophones. =
Par exemple, Montr=E9al- <<ville de minorit=E9s>> o=F9 l'on peut vivre en=
=
anglais seulement- est souvent repr=E9sent=E9e comme sup=E9rieure aux r=E9=
gions =
unlingues. Dans son livre, Guy Bouthillier cite un =E9ditorial du MIRROR =
qui en dit long: <<Montr=E9al est multiple, multilingue, dynamique, ouver=
te =
sur le monde. Le reste du Qu=E9bec est rural, monolingue et monotone. =
Montr=E9al est une perle dans un tas de merde.>>
L'obsession ethnique, c'est aussi des f=E9d=E9ralistes qui, usant de la =
pire d=E9magogie, oeuvrent =E0 =E9loigner les allophones du natinalisme q=
u=E9b=E9cois. =
C'est pourquoi on traite les souverainistes de <<fascistes>>, et de =
<<racistes>>, d'<<antis=E9mites>>, de <<tribalistes>>, etc... Si le =
<<Qu=E9bec bashing>> sert =E0 salir la r=E9putation du Qu=E9bec =E0 l'=E9=
tranger, =
il permet aussi de nourrir chez les non-francophones la peur d'un Qu=E9be=
c =
souverain qui martyriserait ses minorit=E9s.
POur exorciser cette <<obsession ethnique>>, Guy Bouthillier propose un =
Qu=E9bec ind=E9pendant, r=E9publicain et de langue fran=E7aise. Belle sol=
ution, =
en effet. Mais si le lendemain d'un OUI, les Qu=E9b=E9cois ne se donnent =
pas =
une citoyennet=E9 et une Constitution <<d=E9-ethnitis=E9es>>- et qu'ils =
calquent le mod=E8le canadien du multiculturalisme et du bilinguisme-, =
un Qu=E9bec souverain pourrait bien accoucher =E0 son tour d'un HOMO ETHN=
ICUS =
QUEBECENSIS. Comme le Canada, on en serait venu =E0 confondre l'acceptati=
on =
des diff=E9rences avec son obsession...
N.B. Ce dimanche (9/3/97), on annon=E7ait sur les ondes de CJAD que Morde=
chai =
Richler serait bient=F4t chroniqueur =E0 THE GAZETTE. Bravo! The Gazette!=
Ne =
l=E2chez surtout pas! Vous =EAtes un des alli=E9s objectifs des plus effi=
caces =
du mouvement souverainiste. POurriez-vous-pretty please- embaucher aussi =
Howard Galganov et Guy Bertrand?
Jos=E9e Legault
LE DEVOIR [12/03/97]Page A8
Montr=E9al,Qu=E9bec
=00
--------------2CD21023D73--
Christian Lemay
Patrick Lepine <infp...@icrossroads.com> a écrit dans l'article
<332835...@icrossroads.com>...
> Christian Lemay wrote:
>
> > >
> > Es-tu deja venu a Quebec? Ici, tous les services sont disponibles dans
les
> > deux langues. J'avoue que quelques fois il faut etre patient, mais les
gens
> > sont d'habitude tres polis et cherchent quelqu'un de bilingue le plus
> > rapidement possible pour repondre au besoin. Dans les sevices
> > gouvernementaux federaux, 50% des emplois exigent d'etre bilingue
(contre
> > 2% au Canada hors-Quebec). Dans les services provinciaux qui doivent
> > repondre au public, il y toujours des personnes bilingues en poste. Il
y a
> > plusieurs ecoles anglophones au niveau primaire et secondaire et un
CEGEP.
> > Dans tous les restaurants ayant un minimum de classe, les menus sont
> > bilingues et les serveurs aussi, il y a au moins deux cinema dont la
> > programmation est unilingue Anglaise. Il y a une petite communaute
> > Anglophone et certains sont unilingues Anglais. Ca ne doit pas etre si
> > mal!!!
> >
> > Laisse moi te dire que pour avoir visiter plusieurs villes en Ontario,
je
> > n'en ai pas encore trouve une qui offre aux francophones ce que Quebec
> > offre aux Anglo, particulierement au niveau de la politesse.
>
> Comparer le Quebec au autres provinces n'est pas la maniere de montrer
> notre tolerance. On est poli ou impoli. Ce que les autres fait n'est
> pas important. C'est comme compare les Canadiens (l'equipe de hockey) a
> une equipe bantam. Oui les Canadiens sont beaucoup mieux mais ca ne
> veut pas dire que l'equipe est vraiment bonne.
> Je reconnais que la situation est beaucoup mieux au Quebec pour les
> services bilingue. Pourtant ce n'est pas parfait. Comme j'ai deja dit
> ce n'est pas toujours possible d'avoir les services en anglais, et des
> fois c'est necessaire d'etre bien compris/bien comprendre (decrire nos
> symtomes/directions d'un medecin, comme exemple).
> Cad, on doit se comparer a la perfection et non a une province du Canada
> qui ne fait pas bien son job.
> Pour repondre a ta question, est-ce que 27 ans au Quebec est assez?
>
> Patrick Lepine
>
Oui, c'est vrai qu'il faut se comparer a la perfection. Moi je crois,
contrairement a ce que quelques uns affirment, que les services bilingues
s'ameliorent au Quebec, du moins a l'exterieur de la region de Montreal.
Les Quebecois apprennent de plus en plus l'Anglais, par necessite et pour
le plaisir aussi. Avec la mondialisation des marches, et les systemes de
communications qui evoluent a une vitesse folle, l'Anglais est necessaire
pour survivre.
C'est vrai que c'est parfois necessaire de bien comprendre, donc de se
faire repondre dans sa langue maternelle. Tu l'as prouve ci-haut en me
disant que ca fait 27 ans que tu es au Quebec alors que ma question etait
de savoir si tu etais deja venu a Quebec (Quebec City) !!!
Je ne sais pas si tu l'avais compris, mais mon intervention se voulait une
reponse a ce que tu disais, soit de comparer les services bilingues de
l'Ontario avec une petite ville unilingue comme Quebec plutot qu'avec
Montreal. Si tu analyse ma reponse, tu comprendra que ce que je veux dire,
c'est qu'il n'y a aucune commune mesure entre les services en Anglais que
tu peux obtenir a Quebec que les services en francais que tu peux obtenir
en Ontario.
Christian Lemay
Vincent Lupien
Luc Richard wrote:
>
>
> L'HOMO ETHNICUS CANADIENSIS par Josée Legault [Le Devoir 12/03/97]
>
> POur exorciser cette <<obsession ethnique>>, Guy Bouthillier propose un
> en effet. Mais si le lendemain d'un OUI, les Québécois ne se donnent pas
> une citoyenneté et une Constitution <<dé-ethnitisées>>- et qu'ils
> calquent le modèle canadien du multiculturalisme et du bilinguisme-,
> un Québec souverain pourrait bien accoucher à son tour d'un HOMO ETHNICUS
> QUEBECENSIS. Comme le Canada, on en serait venu à confondre l'acceptation
> des différences avec son obsession...
>
> Josée Legault
> LE DEVOIR [12/03/97]Page A8
>
Comme ca fait du bien d'entendre des paroles comme ca. C'est completement vrai,
et c'est precisement ce que dit Neil Bissoondath dans:
"Selling Illusions: The Cult of Multiculturalism in Canada".
Je vous recommande fortement de lire ce livre, surtout car il donne un
apercu objectif du Canada et du Quebec, de par les yeux d'un immigrant ayant
etudie a Toronto et ayant marie une Quebecoise. Il habite Montreal
depuis plusieurs annees.
Dans ce livre il etablit clairement la difference entre la "tolerance" et
"l'acceptation". Il refoule le concept de multiculturalisme comme tentative
de marginaliser la minorite francophone du Canada et comme mesure hypocrite
qui seme la division ethnique au lieu d'integrer et d'accepter tous les membres
de la societe canadienne tout en ressemblant a un exemple de ce qu'il y a de plus juste
au monde.
C'est justement pour cela que je propose l'hyperculture. C'est un modele qui accepte
les minorites, les integre sans les assimiler, et qui rend clair a tous les reglements
de base qui forment le lien commun entre eux. Au Quebec, ces reglements de base incluent:
le francais, notre systeme parlementaire, notre systeme judiciaire, la democratie, etc, etc...
Avec ce modele, je crois que nous pourrons eviter de creer l'HOMO ETHNICUS QUEBECENSIS,
une espece qui s'obsede a deceler les differences ethniques de chacun.
Nous creerions au lieu l'HOMO UNIVERSALIS QUEBECENSIS - une espece chez qui le sentiment
d'etre Quebecois inclut universellement tout le monde et qui comporte une vision commune de
la societe Quebecoise de base: francophone, etc, etc...
Vincent Lupien
Tony Kondaks wrote:
>
> I AM afraid. And I am ESPECIALLY afraid when well educated people like
> yourself (MIT and all) start talking about hypercultures and
> hyperlanguages.
>
I had never used the word hyperlanguage before, but thank you for pointing out
what I had missed and was in front of me all along!
Hyperlanguages! It's a good word.
It's true that hypercultures can be frightening. I came up with the concept
precisely in a moment of awe at the American hyperculture's power and influence.
This is why your ardent support of the abolishment of protectionist measures in
Canada frightens me. Deep down, I would like to see English Canada be distinct from
the USA, but in the end it appears that it's a losing battle.
There is nothing racial about a hyperculture. It is by definition an all-encompassing
culture. This is why I object to the use of the word "hyperaryan" - its racial overtones
are inconsistent with the definition of a hyperculture.
In the end, you can't be a disciple of nothing at all. If you are for culturally protectionist
measures in Quebec, you are a supporter of the creation of a Quebec hyperculture. If you are against culturally
protectionist measures in Quebec but for them at a National level, you are a disciple of Canadian
Nationalism, or a Canadian hyperculture that is distinct from the American one, and a hypocrit
at the same time (and clearly, Tony, you aren't). If you are against all forms of cultural protectionism in
Canada, you are a disciple of the American hyperculture.
We are just supporters of two different hypercultures.
If my support of the creation of an inclusive, non-assimilative but integrative culture in Quebec based
on French scares you, then you should be equally scared of yourself in your underlying support of the rapacious and
merciless American hyperculture.
The idea that a totally free market system should exist everywhere may seem to some to be a universal truth detached from
any cultural context. But the fact is that it's just one vision among many of how to run the world. Some have opted for the
other extreme: communism. Most Western countries lie somewhere in between, combining elements of both philosophies. The choice
each country makes about the relative importance of market forces is itself a manifestation of cultural differences.
Even in the States, the free market does not run completely free and some rules are enforced by the government -
regarding obligatory schooling, prohibition of drugs, minimum legal age for drinking and smoking, use of swear
words on television, etc...
Here, one who supports pushing the American hyperculture towards an even more market-centered nature
would argue that the market alone should decide what language should be used on TV, and would argue
that the market should decide whether or not children should go to school and be forbidden from purchasing
alcohol, etc...
On some of these points it becomes fairly easy for even the most Republican amongst us to see that some limits
to the forces of the market are desirable. In the end, however, this choice is a cultural act. It is the
actualization of the values and principles that the population holds dear and is only partly based on logic.
I hope that this might have made you aware that your support for a completely free market is itself support
for the defining principles of the American hyperculture. From what I have heard, you feel that market forces
should have more importance in Canada, even if it means eroding Canada's cultural sovereignty further and causing it to
merge ever more completely with the US.
If this is correct, then while I respect your opinion, I must say that I feel Canada should try to hold on
to the little cultural sovereignty it has left, even if this means defying the American Holy Grail of the
free market from time to time.
Vincent Lupien
MIT
Cambridge, MA
The idea of a totally free market system is not espoused by all Americans, but it forms, along with democracy,
the basis for the American hyperculture.
Patrick Lepine
Vincent Lupien wrote:
>
> Luc Richard wrote:
> >
> >
> > L'HOMO ETHNICUS CANADIENSIS par Josée Legault [Le Devoir 12/03/97]
> >
> > en effet. Mais si le lendemain d'un OUI, les Québécois ne se donnent pas
> > une citoyenneté et une Constitution <<dé-ethnitisées>>- et qu'ils
> > calquent le modèle canadien du multiculturalisme et du bilinguisme-,
> > un Québec souverain pourrait bien accoucher à son tour d'un HOMO ETHNICUS
> > QUEBECENSIS. Comme le Canada, on en serait venu à confondre l'acceptation
> > des différences avec son obsession...
> >
> > LE DEVOIR [12/03/97]Page A8
> >
>
> Comme ca fait du bien d'entendre des paroles comme ca. C'est completement vrai,
> et c'est precisement ce que dit Neil Bissoondath dans:
>
> "Selling Illusions: The Cult of Multiculturalism in Canada".
>
> Je vous recommande fortement de lire ce livre, surtout car il donne un
> apercu objectif du Canada et du Quebec, de par les yeux d'un immigrant ayant
> etudie a Toronto et ayant marie une Quebecoise. Il habite Montreal
> depuis plusieurs annees.
>
> Dans ce livre il etablit clairement la difference entre la "tolerance" et
> "l'acceptation". Il refoule le concept de multiculturalisme comme tentative
> de marginaliser la minorite francophone du Canada et comme mesure hypocrite
> qui seme la division ethnique au lieu d'integrer et d'accepter tous les membres
> de la societe canadienne tout en ressemblant a un exemple de ce qu'il y a de plus juste
> au monde.
>
> C'est justement pour cela que je propose l'hyperculture. C'est un modele qui accepte
> les minorites, les integre sans les assimiler, et qui rend clair a tous les reglements
> de base qui forment le lien commun entre eux. Au Quebec, ces reglements de base incluent:
> le francais, notre systeme parlementaire, notre systeme judiciaire, la democratie, etc, etc...
>
> Avec ce modele, je crois que nous pourrons eviter de creer l'HOMO ETHNICUS QUEBECENSIS,
> une espece qui s'obsede a deceler les differences ethniques de chacun.
> Nous creerions au lieu l'HOMO UNIVERSALIS QUEBECENSIS - une espece chez qui le sentiment
> d'etre Quebecois inclut universellement tout le monde et qui comporte une vision commune de
> la societe Quebecoise de base: francophone, etc, etc...
>
> MIT
> Cambridge, MA
You know, this stuff might be more credible if the French weren't the
largest single ethnic group in Canada.
Patrick Lepine
Patrick Lepine
Luc Richard wrote:
>
> Peter S. Saly wrote:
> [coupure...]
>
> > Et de temps a autre, les attitudes malicieuse sortent des bouches memes de
> > ceux qui sont les plus qualifies de ne pas exprimer ces attitudes (voire
> > Parizeau apres le referendum...)
> >
> > Peter
>
> Lis ça, mon Peter, ça va te faire comprendre...
>
> 1) Que ton attitude de tenter de culpabilisé les francophones du pays du
> Québec
> ça ne marche plus.
>
> 2) Que le réveil des moutons endormis est pour bientôt.
>
>
> L'HOMO ETHNICUS CANADIENSIS par Josée Legault [Le Devoir 12/03/97]
>
> Depuis le 30 octobre 1995, êtes-vous hanté par le mot de Jacques Parizeau
> sur <<l'argent et des votes ethniques>>? Que vous soyez en accord ou non
> de clones de Lionel-Groulx? Croyez-vous la propagande fédéraliste
> voulant que le projet souverainiste soit <<ethniciste>> et raciste,
>
> Si vous avez répondu oui, vous avez besoin d'aide! Comme d'autres Québécois,
> vous êtes tombé dans la marmite de l'autoculpabilisation quand vous êtiez
> petit. Et vous ignorez sûrement tout de l'<<obsesssion ethnique>> qu'on
> retrouve du côté du Canada et à la racine même de sa culture politique.
>
> Mais rassurez-vous, il existe un remède à vos maux. IL se nomme la
> connaissance de l'histoire et l'analyse politique. Comme premier geste
> intitulé justement l'Obsession Ethnique- un essai démystificateur qui
> vous en apprendra beaucoup sur l'omniprésence de l'ethnicisme, du
> racisme et de la francophobie à travers l'histoire du Canada. À l'heure
> où la political correctness étouffe la liberté d'expression sur ces
> questions, le professeur Bouthillier remet les pendules à l'heure.
>
> De fait, au Canada, tout est marqué du sceau de l'ethnicité: la
> politique, les médias, les chaires universitaires, les organisations
> communautaires, les écoles, les hôpitaux, etc. Guy Bouthillier avance
> que cette obsession remonte jusqu'à la conquête et qu'elle est
> l'héritage d'une culture politique britannique ségrégationniste.
> Ce qui explique- et l'auteur en donne de nombreux exemples-que ce fut
>
> Encore <<obsédé>> dans les années 1970, le Canada passera du racisme
> au culte à outrance des origines ethniques et raciales- deux côtés
> d'une même médaille. Encore aujourd'hui, on confond l'acceptation
> des différences ethniques avec l'obsession de celles-ci.
>
> Guy Bouthillier décrit aussi comment le Canada entretient les
> différences ethniques pour mieux noyer celle du Québec.
> <<Ce sera la diversité contre la dualité!>> IL était donc
> dans la nature des choses qu'Ottawa impose le multiculturalisme officiel,
> au statut d'<<ethnie>>. Et après on se demandera pourquoi les souverainistes
> peinent à s'adjoindre l'appui des non-francophones alors que des
> fédéralistes s'entêtent à leur nier l'existence même du peuple québécois!
>
> L'etnicisme canadien s'est donc avéré une arme efficace dans la lutte
> contre les souverainistes. À cet égard, Guy Bouthillier souligne avec
> quelle adresse les forces du NON manient la <<politique ethnique>> ou
> électoral. On peut d'ailleurs s'attendre à ce qu'Ottawa poursuivre
> cette stratégie avec assiduité, avant et pendant le prochain référendum.
>
> Tout cela tient en effet de l'obsession: <<Pour le Canada, le monde
> ON comprend mieux ce réflexe lorsque m. Bouthillier énumère quelques
> épisodes moins glorieux de son histoire. On pense ici à la
> <<guerre démographique>> qu'ont livrée les Anglais aux Canadiens français
> dès la fin du XVIII ième siècle. Question de <<mieux noyer la population
> canadienne française>>, pour reprendre le mot proféré en 1810 par le
> juge en chef du Bas-Canada, Jonathan Sewell. ON pense aux théories de
> supériorité raciale du peuple anglais défendues jadis par des politiciens
> canadiens anglais et l'imposition d'une politique d'immigration
> sur les Indiens
>
> On pense à l'assimilation des francophones hors Québec, On pense à
> l'internement de Canadiens d'origines japonaise et italienne pendant
> on peut penser à l'attisement du mouvement partitionniste. Mais pour
> les fédéralistes, ces exemples d'<<intolérance>> sont nettement moins
> intéressant que Lionel Groulx ou le F.L.Q....
>
> L'obsession ethnique, c'est aussi le dénigrement des francophones.
> Par exemple, Montréal- <<ville de minorités>> où l'on peut vivre en
> anglais seulement- est souvent représentée comme supérieure aux régions
> unlingues. Dans son livre, Guy Bouthillier cite un éditorial du MIRROR
> qui en dit long: <<Montréal est multiple, multilingue, dynamique, ouverte
> sur le monde. Le reste du Québec est rural, monolingue et monotone.
> Montréal est une perle dans un tas de merde.>>
>
> L'obsession ethnique, c'est aussi des fédéralistes qui, usant de la
> pire démagogie, oeuvrent à éloigner les allophones du natinalisme québécois.
> C'est pourquoi on traite les souverainistes de <<fascistes>>, et de
> <<Québec bashing>> sert à salir la réputation du Québec à l'étranger,
> il permet aussi de nourrir chez les non-francophones la peur d'un Québec
> souverain qui martyriserait ses minorités.
>
> POur exorciser cette <<obsession ethnique>>, Guy Bouthillier propose un
> en effet. Mais si le lendemain d'un OUI, les Québécois ne se donnent pas
> une citoyenneté et une Constitution <<dé-ethnitisées>>- et qu'ils
> calquent le modèle canadien du multiculturalisme et du bilinguisme-,
> un Québec souverain pourrait bien accoucher à son tour d'un HOMO ETHNICUS
> QUEBECENSIS. Comme le Canada, on en serait venu à confondre l'acceptation
>
> N.B. Ce dimanche (9/3/97), on annonçait sur les ondes de CJAD que Mordechai
> Richler serait bientôt chroniqueur à THE GAZETTE. Bravo! The Gazette! Ne
> lâchez surtout pas! Vous êtes un des alliés objectifs des plus efficaces
> du mouvement souverainiste. POurriez-vous-pretty please- embaucher aussi
>
> LE DEVOIR [12/03/97]Page A8
>
It would help if LeGault knew what she were talking about, wouldn't it.
When the primary leaders of separatism claim that the MAIN reason for
separation is to have a French country, it seems rather plain to those
with open eyes that an independent Quebec is only interested in persons
of a particular ethnic origin. We want "nous les vrais Quebecois"
(which you may remember was used to refer to the 60% of Francophones who
voted Oui) to have the the tools of the state.
Separatists try to claim that they aren't racist by pointing to others.
So what? If a LA cop beats a black man for speeding and puts him in a
hospital, is he less racist than the LA cop who shoots a black man for
speeding? Racism is not a question of degree. You can't be a more
tolerant racist than a bad racist.
Patrick Lepine
Christian Lemay
Tony Kondaks <tkon...@primenet.com> a écrit dans l'article
<5giluk$j...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>...
> Hmmm...you've used the qualifier "senior"...what percentage of ALL
> government jobs are held by francophones? In Quebec, 12% of the
> population is anglophone and they have less than 1% of the civil service
> jobs. Wasn't it the Confedeation of Regions Party a while back ago
> claiming that francophones in New Brunswick have a HIGHER percentage of
> civil service jobs than their percentage in the general population
(...and
> I'm just asking, I am not sure exactly what the situation is).
>
> tkondaks __ __ ____ ___ ___
____
Il n'y a pas plus d'anglophones au gouvernement du Quebec parce que la
majorite des emplois sont a Quebec, ou implique des periodes de formation a
Quebec. J'ai personnellement participe a des commites de selection pour
l'embauche de personnel et quoiqu'il y ait eu des anglophones qui se soient
qualifies pour des emplois, la majorite ont decide de ne pas demenager a
Quebec pour occuper l'emploi qui leur etait offert. Il faut aussi ajouter
que, en general, les emplois au gouvernement ne sont pas tres bien
renumeres, ce qui ne plait pas particulierement aux anglophones qui tant
qu'a devoir s'exiler, vont a Toronto ou aux EU pour gagner plus d'argent.
Christian Lemay
Peter S. Saly
Vincent Lupien wrote
>
> Hyperlanguages! It's a good word.
In your case, Vincent language is what you've been talking about, all
along...
> It's true that hypercultures can be frightening. I came up with the
concept
> precisely in a moment of awe at the American hyperculture's power and >
influence.
> This is why your ardent support of the abolishment of protectionist
measures
> in Canada frightens me. Deep down, I would like to see English Canada
> be distinct from the USA, but in the end it appears that it's a losing
battle.
It does not have to be a battle...
Until recently, before the polarizations and tensions brought about by the
language-based racism in Qeebec, there was a sub-culture (at least in
Montreal), that was truly bilingual.
Unfortunately, due to erosion of the population, the people who made up
this group of multilinguals, has diminished to the point of possibly no
return.
And Vincent, it is you and your kind of narrow-minded and short-sighted
bigots, that are responsible for this destruction...
> If you are for culturally protectionist measures in Quebec, you are
> a supporter of the creation of a Quebec hyperculture. If you are against
> culturally protectionist measures in Quebec but for them at a National
level,
> you are a disciple of Canadian Nationalism, or a Canadian hyperculture
that
> is distinct from the American one, and a hypocrite at the same time
> (and clearly, Tony, you aren't).
> If you are against all forms of cultural protectionism in Canada, you are
a
> disciple of the American hyperculture.
Interesting perception:
For Cultural Protectionism in Quebec = Good
For Cultural Protectionism in Canada = Bad
= Hypocrite
Against Cultural Protectionism = Disciple of American
culture
You forgot that Canadian Protectionism also protects Quebec....
> If my support of the creation of an inclusive, non-assimilative but
integrative
> culture in Quebec based on French scares you, then you should be equally
> scared of yourself in your underlying support of the rapacious and
> merciless American hyperculture.
In what way is you definition of the Quebec Hyperculture any less rapacious
and merciless ?
How can Quebec Hyperculture based on French be inclusive, non-assimilative,
and integrative if if limits the usage of other languages, (which by your
premise is an expression of another culture), thereby slowing eroding the
presence of those very cultures...
Sounds to me very much like a small version of your American hyperculture,
only in french...
> If this is correct, then while I respect your opinion, I must say that I
feel
> Canada should try to hold on to the little cultural sovereignty it has
left,
> even if this means defying the American Holy Grail of the free market
from
> time to time.
While you do your damndest to destroy the hyperculture that is based on 2
languanges and cultures supporting and enhancing each other...
Nice job shoveling Vincent,
I swear you could be a farmer anyday for the sheer volume of the stuff you
can move...
Peter
Tony Kondaks
Vincent Lupien <vhlu...@mit.edu> wrote:
: In the end, you can't be a disciple of nothing at all. If you are for culturally protectionist
: measures in Quebec, you are a supporter of the creation of a Quebec hyperculture. If you are against culturally
: protectionist measures in Quebec but for them at a National level, you are a disciple of Canadian
: Nationalism, or a Canadian hyperculture that is distinct from the American one, and a hypocrit
: at the same time (and clearly, Tony, you aren't). If you are against all forms of cultural protectionism in
: Canada, you are a disciple of the American hyperculture.
: We are just supporters of two different hypercultures.
...but I insist on there being a differentiation between a culture or
language that is IMPOSED by law or regulation and one that developes and
is adopted by a people by free choice, regardless of its mass permeation
which may indeed be the case with the American hyperculture that you
label. But even a mass-consumed "hyperculture" is still a culture and if
the people of Timbukto see fit to wear Nikes in the jungle, then so be it;
I don't see that as an unhealthy "invasion" by overbearing American
hyperculture...I see it as a free choice made by free people.
: If my support of the creation of an inclusive, non-assimilative but integrative culture in Quebec based
: on French scares you, then you should be equally scared of yourself in your underlying support of the rapacious and
: merciless American hyperculture.
No. There is a difference. The American hyperculture is not imposed by
law; the Quebec French hyperculture is.
: The idea that a totally free market system should exist everywhere may seem to some to be a universal truth detached from
: any cultural context. But the fact is that it's just one vision among many of how to run the world. Some have opted for the
: other extreme: communism. Most Western countries lie somewhere in between, combining elements of both philosophies. The choice
: each country makes about the relative importance of market forces is itself a manifestation of cultural differences.
...sorry, I don't buy it. Some systems ARE better than others, as we have
discovered with capitalism and communism.
But how about if a Sudanese came to Quebec to live and wanted to include
his/her customs in their new life in Quebec? In the Sudan it is their
culture to circumcize female genitalia (female genital mutilation);
therefore it is acceptable? Who are we to interfere with their culture?
But if a Sudanese came to Quebec or Canada I think we would both agree
that the state has a right to interfere with that individual right of the
parent and stop them from doing that to their daughter.
So, yes, Quebec culture may be different than Canadian or American culture
but all cultures CAN and SHOULD be limited by the standard of individual
rights and freedoms which MUST take precedence over any "collective"
culture...even if preserving ONE man's freedom would mean the death of an
entire culture or language...
For culture, a totally free marketplace is the only acceptable system
(and, yes, I agree that certain limits CAN be placed on TOTAL freedom,
such as shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre).
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tkondaks __ __ ____ ___ ___ ____
Tony Kondaks
Vincent Lupien <vhlu...@mit.edu> wrote:
: It's true that hypercultures can be frightening. I came up with the concept
: precisely in a moment of awe at the American hyperculture's power and influence.
: This is why your ardent support of the abolishment of protectionist measures in
: Canada frightens me. Deep down, I would like to see English Canada be distinct from
: the USA, but in the end it appears that it's a losing battle.
But what if Canada and Quebec were to have no protectionist matters in
culture and, as a result, they adopt what you claim is the
Americanhyperculture...what would be wrong with that? It would just mean
that free people have freely chosen which culture was to be their
own...and at THAT point we could call it Canadian culture, whatever it
was.
But the argument of what is "American culture" and what is "Canadian" or
"Quebec" culture is moot...it is kind of like the old argument of saying
that a Toyota is a "Japanese" made car or a Volkswagen is "German" or a
chevrolet is "American". The reality in the automotive industry today is
that any particular car is, in all likelihood, a mixture of three or four
nationalities: the engine is made in Sarnia, Ontario; the chassis made in
Detroit; the electronics in Japan; the upholstery in Mexico and the
Blauplunkt in Germany (which, in turn, was made in five different
countries).
It is much the same with national cultures. For example, a Canadian
context law, passed and implemented at great expense to the Canadian
taxpayer, may produce a "Canadian" film or TV program that only a few
thousand people see...a production that was only made because of the law
and it really, really sucks. Yet I will get more Canadian content
watching a rerun of Star Trek -- which is brought to me by the marketplace
-- and 1,000 times more Canadians will see it than the legislated Canadian
content program (Star Trek is HEAVILY Canadian content because of
Montreal-born William Shatner, main protagonist, and Scotty, born in
Vancouver).
My God, the American female singer market for CDs and radio airplay is
DOMINATED by Canadians...way out of proportion to the percentage of
Canadians in North America, all done WITHOUT the imposition of culture
laws: Celine Dion, Shania Twain (here in country music land she is heard
every five minutes!), K.D. Laing, Terri Clark...this Canadian-dominated
American hyperculture that comes into Canada IS the precious Canadian or
Quebec culture that you want protectionist laws to promote!!
And don't get me started on Hollywood with Jim Carey, Keanu Reeves,
director James Cameron, etc. etc...all Canadians, all DOMINATING your
American hyperculture.
If you were to proportion all American hyperculture input Canadians
receive from south of the border I think you will find that they get MORE
Canadian content from this source than anything emanating from Canada (and
that includes TV shows and music and films that Quebecers see in Quebec).
So the marketplace has, indeed, accomplished Canadian content in a way
that no law could ever hope to accomplish!
Kevin McDougald
Vincent Lupien <vhlu...@mit.edu> wrote in article
<332ED8...@mit.edu>...
>I hope that this might have made you aware that your support for a
>completely free market is itself support for the defining principles
>of the American hyperculture.
First, those of us who support a free market believe that the state is not
competent to manage the economy; and that if the state is to intervene in
the economy, it should only be done because of unfortunate necessity.
Whether one is pro-American, anti-American, or simply indifferent is beside
the point.
Second, the idea of free markets is not so much rooted in American culture
as it is in Anglo-Saxon culture - upon which the Canadian, American,
British, Australian, and New Zealand cultures are predominantly based.
It's no surprise that the free market strikes a chord in Canada, given our
cultural roots as well as economic, cultural, and historical links to
America and, to a lesser extent, Britain.
--
"The destructive capacity...of the state, however
well-intentioned, [is] almost limitless. Expand the
state, and that destructive capacity necessarily
expands too..." - historian Paul Johnson.
Christian Lemay
Patrick Lepine <infp...@icrossroads.com> a écrit dans l'article
<332721...@icrossroads.com>...
> Vincent Lupien wrote:
> > % French speakers in Quebec learning English > % English Speakers in
Ontario learning French
> >
> > % French speakers in Ontario learning English > % English speaker in
Quebec learning French
>
> > Take your time, look at these inequations, and think about them real
hard.
>
> You don't even know what you wrote. Those equations are not what you
> posted earlier. Admit your mistake, and I won't keep calling you an
> idiot.
Pourtant, il y en a qui avait compris. Les % etaient sous entendu. (C'etait
peut-etre un peu trop subtile pour toi)
> > You wrote:
> > > The fact that there are any Anglos in Ontario, or more surprisingly
Alberta, learning French is
> > > impressive enough. French isn't that important to their daily lives
or
> > > futures. Spanish is a much better choice for a second language,
given
> > > NA geography/demographics.
> >
> > So using the same logic it should be surprising that French Quebecers
> > learn English at all since English isn't that important to their daily
lives or futures.
>
> That's right. There are almost no English speakers in North America for
> Quebecers to do business with. There are 80 million Spanish speakers in
> Mexico alone. add in the rest of central america and you have well
> over 100 million potential customers. 100 vs 7. I think it's pretty
> safe to say that Spanish is a much bigger potential market, even if they
> only make 1/10 as much as the French of NA.
>
> Patrick Lepine
Il parlait de la vie de tous les jours. Quel est le pourcentage des
Canadiens qui sont en affaire et qui ont a traiter avec des Espagnols: 1 ou
2% de la population. Quel est le pourcentage d'Anglophones du Canada qui
ont acces soit a la television, a la radio ou au cinema francophone:
presque 100%. Pour les memes services espagnols au Canada: tres peu. Alors
pour la vie de tous les jours quelle langue est la plus interessante?
Quand tu parle de marche potentiel, n'oublie pas que 40% des exportations
de l'Ontario vont au Quebec. Avant que le marche Espagnol n'atteigne ce
point, plusieurs annees vont passer. Evidemment pour faire des affaires
avec le Quebec les Ontariens n'ont pas a apprendre le francais, mais pour
faire des affaires avec les espagnols il faut apprendre leur langue! Les
Quebecois ne meritent pas autant de respect que les autres?
Christian Lemay
Christian Lemay
Peter S. Saly <Pe...@saly.com> a écrit dans l'article
<01bc308d$07bd4de0$40258dd0@spim_a.isd.net>...
> Eh oui, c'est gens-la n'arretent pas a la frontiere du Quebec..
> La schizophrenie est cause par des facteurs externes. Par exemple, un
> chien ou chat qui ne sait pas s'il va se faire tape dessus ou carresse a
> chaque rencontre peut devenir schizophrene....
> Et les anglophones au Quebec ont recu une longue serie de tapes et de
> caresses dans les 30 dernieres annees.
> Et la source principale de ces gestes sont les separatistes..
> Pourquoi ne seraient'0ils pas mefiants ???
>
Et les francophones du Quebec ont recu une longue serie de tapes et de
caresses dans les 200 dernieres annees.
Et la source principale de ces gestes sont les federalistes..
Pourquoi ne seraient'0ils pas mefiants ???
Christian Lemay
Luc Richard
Patrick Lepine wrote:
>
> Luc Richard wrote:
> >
> > L'HOMO ETHNICUS CANADIENSIS par Josée Legault [Le Devoir 12/03/97]
> >
> >
> > LE DEVOIR [12/03/97]Page A8
> > Montréal,Québec
> >
> It would help if LeGault knew what she were talking about, wouldn't it.
> When the primary leaders of separatism claim that the MAIN reason for
> separation is to have a French country, it seems rather plain to those
> with open eyes that an independent Quebec is only interested in persons
> of a particular ethnic origin.
ÇA c'est le mythe que VOUS tentez de perpétrer ad vitam, mais NON la
réalité.
Ce qui suit est très intéressant cher Homo Ethnicus canadiensis,
vraiment...
> We want "nous les vrais Quebecois"
> (which you may remember was used to refer to the 60% of Francophones who
> voted Oui) to have the the tools of the state.
> Separatists try to claim that they aren't racist by pointing to others.
> So what? If a LA cop beats a black man for speeding and puts him in a
> hospital, is he less racist than the LA cop who shoots a black man for
> speeding? Racism is not a question of degree. You can't be a more
> tolerant racist than a bad racist.
>
> Patrick Lepine
Bof... t'aura beau dire des conneries, des mensonges énormes, à long
terme,
le bon sens aura toujours raison des dénigreurs de ta sorte.
--
Luc @ Anjou,
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/lucanjou/homepage.htm
Avez-vous pris vot' Nescafé ce matin ?
.
Luc Richard
[coupure...]
Vincent Lupien wrote:
[coupure...]
> Avec ce modele, je crois que nous pourrons eviter de creer l'HOMO ETHNICUS QUEBECENSIS,
> une espece qui s'obsede a deceler les differences ethniques de chacun.
> Nous creerions au lieu l'HOMO UNIVERSALIS QUEBECENSIS - une espece chez qui le sentiment
> d'etre Quebecois inclut universellement tout le monde et qui comporte une vision commune de
> la societe Quebecoise de base: francophone, etc, etc...
Haaaaa, mais... cher Lupien ! Étant donné que l'existence de l'Homo
Ethnicus Canadiensis n'est pas
remis en cause. IL sera difficile de se défaire de cette image que
l'Homo Ethnicus Canadiensis tente
de projeter des Québécois à travers la planète ! Les ambassades, ces
lieux, hautement politisés en
faveur de l'Homo Ethnicus Canadiensis n'en sont qu'un exemple. IL y a
biensûr, nos dénigreurs coutumiers
que l'on retrouve ici et etc... et etc... et etc...
Luc Richard
Patrick Lepine wrote:
>
> Vincent Lupien wrote:
> >
> > Luc Richard wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > en effet. Mais si le lendemain d'un OUI, les Québécois ne se donnent pas
> > > une citoyenneté et une Constitution <<dé-ethnitisées>>- et qu'ils
> > > calquent le modèle canadien du multiculturalisme et du bilinguisme-,
> > > un Québec souverain pourrait bien accoucher à son tour d'un HOMO ETHNICUS
> > > QUEBECENSIS. Comme le Canada, on en serait venu à confondre l'acceptation
> > > des différences avec son obsession...
> > >
> > > LE DEVOIR [12/03/97]Page A8
> > >
> >
> > Comme ca fait du bien d'entendre des paroles comme ca. C'est completement vrai,
> > et c'est precisement ce que dit Neil Bissoondath dans:
> >
> > "Selling Illusions: The Cult of Multiculturalism in Canada".
>
> largest single ethnic group in Canada.
>
> Patrick Lepine
--
Tony Kondaks
Christian Lemay <c.l...@videotron.ca> wrote:
: Il n'y a pas plus d'anglophones au gouvernement du Quebec parce que la
: majorite des emplois sont a Quebec, ou implique des periodes de formation a
: Quebec. J'ai personnellement participe a des commites de selection pour
: l'embauche de personnel et quoiqu'il y ait eu des anglophones qui se soient
: qualifies pour des emplois, la majorite ont decide de ne pas demenager a
: Quebec pour occuper l'emploi qui leur etait offert. Il faut aussi ajouter
: que, en general, les emplois au gouvernement ne sont pas tres bien
: renumeres, ce qui ne plait pas particulierement aux anglophones qui tant
: qu'a devoir s'exiler, vont a Toronto ou aux EU pour gagner plus d'argent.
What percentage of all civil servant jobs in Quebec are found in Montreal?
Certainly, a much higher percentage in Quebec City...but if you were to
calculate the percentage of civil service jobs in Montreal and compare
that to the fact that 90% of all anglophones are within commuting distance
of Montreal you would find that they are, still, clearly underrepresented.
"Government jobs are not very well remunerated?" You've GOT to be kidding
on that one...
I have also participated in programs for jobs for anglos in the Quebec
civil service. My experience was that the phone rang off the hook with
anglophones calling trying to get the coveted civil service jobs. We had
to abandon the project because we simply didn't have the resources to deal
with the incredible response we got.
It is, pure and simple, a result of having an English name and an English
accent why anglophones don't get civil service jobs in Quebec.
: Christian Lemay
presentix
Tony Kondaks <tkon...@primenet.com> wrote in article
<5giluk$j...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>...
> presentix <pres...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>
>
> : Francophones outside Quebec are still fighting just to get fair
> : representation. For
> : example, in New-Brunswick francophones represent over 30% of the
> : population.
> : So why not 30% of the ressources?
>
> What do you mean by resources? You mean government expenditures? How
can
> these be statistically divided between francophones and anglophones
> (except in areas such as schools which are clearly delineated).
When Acadians (in New-Brunswick) represent over 30% of the population and
when
5% of all top level government civil servants are Acadian you can say this
is
under-representation.
>
> : Of senior government jobs?
>
> Hmmm...you've used the qualifier "senior"...what percentage of ALL
> government jobs are held by francophones? In Quebec, 12% of the
> population is anglophone and they have less than 1% of the civil service
> jobs. Wasn't it the Confedeation of Regions Party a while back ago
> claiming that francophones in New Brunswick have a HIGHER percentage of
> civil service jobs than their percentage in the general population
(...and
> I'm just asking, I am not sure exactly what the situation is).
The CORE party has been basically washed away from N.-B. politics. They
where
so far away from reality. Basically they were just appealing to
N.-Brunswickers'
sense of injustice for political capital. Certain jobs in government
required a
bilingual worker. Unilingual Anglophones thaught this to be unfair. Normal
since
about the only bilingual people in N.-B. are Acadians. These jobs where few
and
far between. I have yet to notice 30% of civil servants in Fredericton are
bilingual.
Fair is fair but this situation doesn't constitute as much of a problem for
bilingual
Acadians as much as it would for unilingual English in Quebec.
>
> : Of French
> : presence on commercial signs?
>
> : Go to Moncton, N.B. (40% French) and look for the French signs and
> : services...
>
>
> I haven't been to Moncton in about 10 years but when I was there I
> remember it as being the most bilingual city I was ever in...I can't
> remember what exact percentage of signs were in English and French but,
> certainly, virtually every single shop I went to I heard both English and
> French spoken. I remember it as an ideal Canadian city in that sense...
Moncton IS bilingual because there are lots of people who speak English and
lots who speak French BUT, did you notice a lot of French on commercial
signs?
It is an ideal Canadian city because English and French are relatively very
tolerant to one another. However, it is assumed that since Acadians there
understand English, there is no need to address them in French. The
situation
is slowly improving but far from being ideal.
>
> IF, as you claim, in Moncton there isan unhealthy plethora of unilingual
> English signs, are the francophones:
>
> 1) unhappy about it?
Yes and they ARE doing something about it. One Acadian French class from
Dieppe (that's where the biggest mall is situated) went and surveyed
Champlain
Place (Champlain was the French explorator that founded Acadia in 1604 and
Quebec in 1608) for the presence of English vs French on commercial signs
as
an assignment. They wrote to all store owners/chains with the results of
their research to try to get them to put more French in signs as a way to
respect
the very important 40% minority in the area.
This was done without clammering, name calling or outright insults and
rhetoric.
It would be nice to see Quebec separatist adopt this attitude :-)
>
> 2) if the answer to (1) is "YES", are they still giving those businesses
> their patronage or are they telling the store owners and managers that
> they want French signs or else they will lose their spend their money
> elsewhere?
More and more Acadians are insisting they be served in French as a
condition
of their patronage. Which is good and normal. If I were a business owner
and
40% of my clients were Italiens I would learn the language and make sure
most (not all but most) of my employees could speak Italian.
>
> : Good luck!
>
> : P.S. Acadians are still fighting for their rights.
>
> Which rights exactly, Francois? If you are talking just about the
> New Brunswick Acadians, which you appear to be doing, and not Nova
> Scotian Acadians...
Nova Scotia WAS the original Acadia. Only after deportation has
New-Brunswick
become the home to most Acadians. There are also Acadians in P.E.I.
(originally called Ile St-Jean) and New-Foundland.
As far as which rights I'm talking about why not fair representation to
start with.
Acadians in the Maritime provinces represent only 2% of the Canadian
population.
So how about 2% of CBC's budget for culture, or the NFB?
Of course I would be more than willing to give a special status for
Acadians
living in Nova Scotia but, distinct is not a very popular term in Canada.
>
> You aren't assuming, are you, that private commercial signs in French or
> service by a private business is a "right", are you? Or are you
> referring to government services by the provincial government and
> quasi-public services, such as hospitals, higher education, etc.
It is NOT a right for Acadians to assume all commercial signs should
contain
French. However, if all 40% of Moncton Acadians boycoted stores that show
no respect for French I'm sure you would agree it would get a lot of store
owners
shuffling.
>
> Please clarify because my understanding (and I am open to be corrected)
is
> that New Brunswick francophones enjoy French as an official language in
> that province.
You are right. New-Brunswick is THE only officially bilingual province in
this
country. I don't like what I see as far as language laws apply to Quebec.
Although
I am a francophone and I'm presently living in Quebec, I find that
anglophones
in Quebec and francophones in New-Brunswick go to great lenghts to recieve
services in their language. A lot of Quebecois anglophones know how to
speak
in French just as most Acadians know English. It's so often much easier to
go
on in the most popular language than to fight to get served in your native
language in the first place.
>
> --
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
> tkondaks __ __ ____ ___ ___
____
> tkon...@primenet.com /__)/__) / / / / /_ /\ / /_
/
> / / \ / / / / /__ / \/ /___
/---------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
>
Francois Bourgeois
Vincent Lupien
Excellent points. I too believe that the state is not competent to manage the
economy.
I also believe that the economy is not a competent manager of everything. Allowing
money to control our values, our language, and our culture is a mistake.
Government does have its role to play in preventing every aspect of society from
being defined by the lowest common denominator, which is what tends to happen
when each issue is viewed solely from an economic standpoint.
The free market system is implemented to various degrees in the Western world,
and nowhere, not even in the USA, is the implementation complete. I object to
the philosophy that the market be _completely_ free.
It's true that the concept of a free market is present is many cultures, but
I believe the concept is most fundamental to culture in the US. The concept of
free market is "holy" here. Government involvment which would be considered
routine in the UK, Canada, or Australia becomes an unspeakable obscenity in the US.
The concept that money should decide culture is central to US culture, but not
to all free-market societies.
Vincent Lupien
Peter S. Saly wrote:
>
> Interesting perception:
>
> For Cultural Protectionism in Quebec = Good
> For Cultural Protectionism in Canada = Bad
> = Hypocrite
>
> Against Cultural Protectionism = Disciple of American
> culture
>
> You forgot that Canadian Protectionism also protects Quebec....
Canadian protectionism does not protect Quebec. It treats French as a tile
in a mosaic with English cement. Canadian protectionism marginalizes
french-canadian culture while implicitly stating that English is the uniting
force of the diverse arrangment of cultures. Quebec protectionism would
promote French by asserting it as the cement uniting many different cultures.
> In what way is you definition of the Quebec Hyperculture any less rapacious
> and merciless ?
>
> How can Quebec Hyperculture based on French be inclusive, non-assimilative,
> and integrative if if limits the usage of other languages, (which by your
> premise is an expression of another culture), thereby slowing eroding the
> presence of those very cultures...
> Sounds to me very much like a small version of your American hyperculture,
> only in french...
I like the part of the American hyperculture than melds people together.
Each component becomes transformed by the other. I do not want to see
Quebecois culture _assimilate_ other groups, i.e. transform them into
Quebecois copies. What I would like to see is a true culture meld!
The result of this meld is that French is the principal element of the sauce,
but the sauce is flavoured by many other languages. What does this mean? It
means that the culture of the rural Quebecois in Gaspe has been influenced
by the cultures of people from all over the world. It also means that the
family from India living in Montreal has been influenced by all the rural
Quebecois in Quebec.
That is not happening right now. Immigrants would rather ignore French and
form divisive pockets of culture here and there that do not blend with
mainstream Quebec society. This rejection of cultural sharing is what must stop.
"Sharing" does not mean simply to acknowledge the francophone reality - it means
to become one with it, and in the process to transform it with your own contribution.
> > If this is correct, then while I respect your opinion, I must say that I
> feel
> > Canada should try to hold on to the little cultural sovereignty it has
> left,
> > even if this means defying the American Holy Grail of the free market
> from
> > time to time.
>
> While you do your damndest to destroy the hyperculture that is based on 2
> languanges and cultures supporting and enhancing each other...
I would love to see everyone in Canada be bilingual. That won't happen.
So, let's talk about everyone in Quebec being bilingual. Would it be possible to
create a bilingual hyperculture? Maybe. Would I like to see it happen? Yes!
But let's analyze it clearly. First, demonstrate to me how immigrants will
become bilingual. How will they be convinced to learn French and not only
English? Then, demonstrate to me how Quebec will remain
_forever_ bilingual. Prove to me that it won't erode into simply being
English 5 generations from now. If you can demonstrate that to me, you
will seriously have made a major, major contribution to this issue that
will revolutionize it completely, and you may well succeed in turning
me around completely.
But be careful. If you just respond to me with your usual dose of insults
and mindless clutter, you will have lost an important opportunity at
open discussion with another human being.
> Nice job shoveling Vincent,
> I swear you could be a farmer anyday for the sheer volume of the stuff you
> can move...
>
> Peter
Vincent Lupien
MIT
Cambridge, MA
Peter S. Saly
Vincent Lupien wrote
>
> <Snip>
>
> Canadian protectionism does not protect Quebec. It treats French as a
tile
> in a mosaic with English cement. Canadian protectionism marginalizes
> french-canadian culture while implicitly stating that English is the
uniting
> force of the diverse arrangment of cultures.
BZZZT.. Wrong answer
Canadian protectionism protects Quebec as all other cultural material in
Canada
That's what Canadian content rules are protecting...
Celine Dion and Jesse Winchester alike...
> Quebec protectionism would promote French by asserting it as the cement
> uniting many different cultures.
BZZT.. wrong answer
Quebec protectionism, as you define it, does and will promote French, at
the expense of evrything else...
It has no interest in any other language.
It is and has been purely francophone...
>
> I like the part of the American hyperculture than melds people together.
> Each component becomes transformed by the other. I do not want to see
> Quebecois culture _assimilate_ other groups, i.e. transform them into
> Quebecois copies. What I would like to see is a true culture meld!
> The result of this meld is that French is the principal element of the
sauce,
> but the sauce is flavoured by many other languages. What does this mean?
It
> means that the culture of the rural Quebecois in Gaspe has been
influenced
> by the cultures of people from all over the world. It also means that the
> family from India living in Montreal has been influenced by all the rural
> Quebecois in Quebec.
Nice theory
But restricting access and the desire to be exposed by using force is
counter-productive...
That is why so many anglos are leaving Quebec
Your theory in practice is coercive and intolerant...
>
> That is not happening right now. Immigrants would rather ignore French
and
> form divisive pockets of culture here and there that do not blend with
> mainstream Quebec society. This rejection of cultural sharing is what
must stop.
> "Sharing" does not mean simply to acknowledge the francophone reality -
> it means to become one with it, and in the process to transform it with
> your own contribution.
>
Let me re-quote your own words
" it means to become one with it (the francophone reality)"
When you become one with it, you become it, you disappear...
Get it...
We did...
>
> But let's analyze it clearly. First, demonstrate to me how immigrants
will
> become bilingual. How will they be convinced to learn French and not only
> English?
>
1) To create a truly bilingual (or better yet multi-lingual) society, You
teach languages starting a age 2. and you keep teaching it till the end of
school.
2) You may not convince the new immigrants to learn French or even English.
So What.?
Teach the kids...And teach them both languages well..
The reason you have resistance from the immigrants to French in Quebec is
because they do not believe that French-only is the right choice for their
children. And rightfully so.. The separatists are not confidence-inspiring
as to the long-term future of Quebec...
I speak from personnal experience here. I was surrounded by families and
friends where 3 languanges was the minimum in the househould. All the
children went to extra effort (due to the parents not the kids..) to learn
multiple languages.
These adults are now passing on the same habits to their children...
> ...... Then, demonstrate to me how Quebec will remain
> _forever_ bilingual. Prove to me that it won't erode into simply being
> English 5 generations from now. If you can demonstrate that to me, you
> will seriously have made a major, major contribution to this issue that
> will revolutionize it completely, and you may well succeed in turning
> me around completely.
>
Why should I even try to demonstrate how Quebec will remain >>forever<<
bilingual ?
Why should I demonstrate how Quebecers will still speak French in 5
generations
Who are you to dictate that 5 generations from now people should speak
French, English, or any other language ?
How arrogant can a person be ??
How would you feel if you great-great-great-grandfather were telling you
that you must speak French or English or Urdu...
Yet, isn't that what you are trying to do ?
How arrogant can that be ?
I only hope that my great-great-great-grandshildren will be healthy, happy,
surrounded by family and friends, have opportunities to live a full life of
their choice.
Whether they do that in English, French, or Urdu is not my concern
Nor is it my right to impose on them by LAW that they must use the language
of my choice.
I can only hope that the things of value that my parents and grandparents
taught me, I wiil teach my children and grandchildren, and maybe even my
great-grandchildren.
But to try to force on them the language they must speak is repugnant
> But be careful. If you just respond to me with your usual dose of insults
> and mindless clutter, you will have lost an important opportunity at
> open discussion with another human being.
>
No garantee Vincent
There never are...
You are trying to lock in the present...
If you try to force the future into your vision of the future, all you will
end up with is misery for the future generation...
Could my great-great-great-grandfather even visualize a society where:
we can speak to each other across unknown distances,
we can travel around the globe in less than 2 days,
most of us in Canada and Quebec do not have to worry about our
daily bread
and if we do, the collective is wealthy enough to help feed you,
No Vincent, you o not have the right to lock down the options availible to
my and your descendants.
Yet, that is exactly what your approach to Quebec will achieve.
I do not see any difference between you and the ayatollahs of Iran
Their religion is Islam, yours is "la francophonie"
And look at what they did to Iran in 20 years....
Think of what harm you can do in 5 generations....
Peter
Peter S. Saly
Vincent Lupien
Peter S. Saly wrote:
>
> Vincent Lupien wrote
> >
> > <Snip>
> >
> > Canadian protectionism does not protect Quebec. It treats French as a
> tile
> > in a mosaic with English cement. Canadian protectionism marginalizes
> > french-canadian culture while implicitly stating that English is the
> uniting
> > force of the diverse arrangment of cultures.
>
> BZZZT.. Wrong answer
> Canadian protectionism protects Quebec as all other cultural material in
> Canada
> That's what Canadian content rules are protecting...
> Celine Dion and Jesse Winchester alike...
Canadian protectionism protects Quebec as all other cultural material in Canada:
Chinese, Indian, Albanian, etc. It marginalizes Quebec as but a tile in a
colourful mosaic. The underlying implication is that the unifying force of
society is English. It snubs Quebec's proper place as a mosaic of its own,
which is based on the French-Quebecois culture as opposed to the Canadian mosaic
which is based on the English-Canadian culture.
> > That is not happening right now. Immigrants would rather ignore French
> and
> > form divisive pockets of culture here and there that do not blend with
> > mainstream Quebec society. This rejection of cultural sharing is what
> must stop.
> > "Sharing" does not mean simply to acknowledge the francophone reality -
> > it means to become one with it, and in the process to transform it with
> > your own contribution.
> >
>
> Let me re-quote your own words
> " it means to become one with it (the francophone reality)"
> When you become one with it, you become it, you disappear...
> Get it...
> We did...
I take it that you are in favour of multiculturalism, then. You are for
the preservation of a multitude of separate identities in Canada which
contemplate each other but do not become one. They should all speak
different languages, should all have vastly differing values.
I don't find that to be a desirable model for anybody in Canada.
It promotes divisiveness and national incoherence.
> Why should I even try to demonstrate how Quebec will remain >>forever<<
> bilingual ?
> Why should I demonstrate how Quebecers will still speak French in 5
> generations
> Who are you to dictate that 5 generations from now people should speak
> French, English, or any other language ?
If you cannot demonstrate that French is not threatened, that is, that it
has achieved a steady state that can ensure its stability for the future, you
have failed to convince me that I should renounce measures such as Bill 101.
> I only hope that my great-great-great-grandshildren will be healthy, happy,
> surrounded by family and friends, have opportunities to live a full life of
> their choice.
> Whether they do that in English, French, or Urdu is not my concern
THERE IT IS! I knew I would find it eventually.
That is the difference between us. You pretend not to care about culture and
I don't. The truth about you is that you don't give a damn whether or not
French survives. It is exactly because of people like you that francophones,
who DO care whether or not French survives, have to take measures such as
Bill 101. I hope you finally understand that you might as well stop posting
any of your messages if you don't care about the healthy state of French
in Quebec. You're not going to convince many francophone Quebecois, whether
Federalist or Separatist, that it doesn't matter what language their great-
grandchildren speak! So why are you posting? If you aren't trying to convince
any Quebecois to vote "NO" with the confidence that French will survive,
what is your motive in posting here?
It's clear that with your view on the unimportance of the survival of French,
it would disappear in Quebec, eroded by the powerful American hyperculture.
Ensuring the survival of a language is like preventing the exctinction of
a species. It does not "lock down" opportunities for future generations, as
you put it. Quite the contraty, it broadens their opportunities.
I think you should have taken more time to respond to my message. Your quick
response can't possibly have given you enough time for the kind of reflection
that was called for in my challenge to you.
I'll give you another chance, if you want it.
Christian Lemay
Tony Kondaks <tkon...@primenet.com> a écrit dans l'article
<5gpdgm$9...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>...
Tu serais surpris de voir les chiffres. Il est vrai qu'il y a disparite et
que certains emplois sont bien renumeres mais il y en a aussi beaucoup qui
sont carrement mal payes. Tu veux des exemples: les avocats sont bien
payes, salaire maximum +-75 000 $ bien plus que dans le prive. On se
demande pourquoi? Ils font les lois et sont toujours en contact avec ces
chers politiciens qui sont eux memes en majorite des avocats. Les agents
d'informations ou journalistes, salaire maximum de 58 000 $ bien plus que
dans le prive. Les bibliothecaires 56 000 $ bien plus que dans le prive.
Maintenant les mals payes: Les actuaires salaire maximum de 65 000 $, pres
de 50% moins que dans le prive. Technicien salaire maximum de 37 000 $ et
technicien specialiste 40 000 $, 25% de moins que dans le prive. Secretaire
bilingue salaire maximum 25 000 $, 20% de moins que dans le prive. Analyste
en informatique 58 000$, 20% de moins que dans le prive. Ingenieur 58 000
$, 20% de moins que dans le prive.
N.B.: les salaires mentionnes sont les salaires maximun apres 12 a 15 ans
de travail dependant des corps d'emplois et les salaires ont ete arrondis
au 1000 le plus pres.
>
> I have also participated in programs for jobs for anglos in the Quebec
> civil service. My experience was that the phone rang off the hook with
> anglophones calling trying to get the coveted civil service jobs. We had
> to abandon the project because we simply didn't have the resources to
deal
> with the incredible response we got.
Je me demande bien dans quel genre de programme tu as participe. Toute
application pour obtenir un emploi doit etre faite par ecrit au
Gouvernement du Quebec et toutes les applications sont traitees.
>
> It is, pure and simple, a result of having an English name and an English
> accent why anglophones don't get civil service jobs in Quebec.
>
Ca c'est de la paranoia. Tu crois qu'un gestionnaire ne choisirais pas le
meilleur employe disponible parce qu'il a un nom anglais ou un accent
anglais, c'est ridicule. Je ne dis pas qu'il n'y a pas quelques cas de
raciste, mais ce n'est surement pas generalise.
Christian Lemay
Tony Kondaks
Vincent Lupien <vhlu...@mit.edu> wrote:
: That is not happening right now. Immigrants would rather ignore French and
: form divisive pockets of culture here and there that do not blend with
: mainstream Quebec society. This rejection of cultural sharing is what must stop.
: "Sharing" does not mean simply to acknowledge the francophone reality - it means
: to become one with it, and in the process to transform it with your own contribution.
Vincent, do you know what "freedom of association" means?
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wes Warner
In message <3331BE...@mit.edu> - Vincent Lupien <vhlu...@mit.edu>Thu, 20
Mar 1997 17:46:24 -0500 writes:
[snip]
:>If you cannot demonstrate that French is not threatened, that is, that it
:>has achieved a steady state that can ensure its stability for the future, you
:>have failed to convince me that I should renounce measures such as Bill 101.
*** Useful thread. My interest in it
is captured in the 3 lines above.
Parts of Bill 101 are about
"preserving French" in a positive sense.
(Right to work in French for example.)
But other parts are pro-French in the
negitive sense that the German claim pre
WW2 for "Lebensraum", or living space
was pro-German. The theory in both cases
is that 'wiping out what is there' will
leave space for the desired thing to
prosper.
In nature it is possible to have the notion
that killing Wolves will "demonstrate that
Elk is not threatened". (Paraphrasing your
worsd above.) This 'demonstration' might
please Elk voters, and displease Wolf voters,
but it is hardly sound long term ecology, if
the real long term threat is a shrinking environment
for both.
Moving the analogy from animal to vegitable,
Government social policy is not really the
same thing as weeding a garden. All plants
are equal.
So I suggest you distinguish between the pro-French
and the anti-English parts of Bill 101, and
"renounce measures" in 101 that are anti-English.
In other words:
You can fertilize the French garden in Quebec,
but not use weed killer.
Wes
Tony Kondaks
Christian Lemay <c.l...@videotron.ca> wrote:
: >
: > I have also participated in programs for jobs for anglos in the Quebec
: > civil service. My experience was that the phone rang off the hook with
: > anglophones calling trying to get the coveted civil service jobs. We had
: > to abandon the project because we simply didn't have the resources to
: deal
: > with the incredible response we got.
: Je me demande bien dans quel genre de programme tu as participe. Toute
: application pour obtenir un emploi doit etre faite par ecrit au
: Gouvernement du Quebec et toutes les applications sont traitees.
I worked as a political attache to a MNA. As an experiement, the MNA
announced that he would help minority-language constituents -- because of
their underrepresentation -- apply for Quebec civil service jobs. The
only place this announcement appeared was in a local weekly newspaper...on
something like page 58!
Well, for the next two weeks that is all we were involved in: the phone
rang off the hook and people were coming into our office day and night to
look over the announcements -- published weekly by the government --
announcing the job opennings.
: >
: > It is, pure and simple, a result of having an English name and an English
: > accent why anglophones don't get civil service jobs in Quebec.
: >
:
: Ca c'est de la paranoia. Tu crois qu'un gestionnaire ne choisirais pas le
: meilleur employe disponible parce qu'il a un nom anglais ou un accent
: anglais, c'est ridicule. Je ne dis pas qu'il n'y a pas quelques cas de
: raciste, mais ce n'est surement pas generalise.
Christian, what other explanation could you possibly give for less than 1%
representation in the civil service yet 12% actual population?
Peter S. Saly
> Vincent Lupien wrote
>
> Canadian protectionism protects Quebec as all other cultural material in
> Chinese, Indian, Albanian, etc. It marginalizes Quebec as but a tile in a
> colourful mosaic. The underlying implication is that the unifying force
of
> society is English. It snubs Quebec's proper place as a mosaic of its
own,
> which is based on the French-Quebecois culture as opposed to the Canadian
> mosaic which is based on the English-Canadian culture.
>
YOU believe that the unifying force is English.
You believe that Quebec is marginallized.
You believe that the Canadian culture is uniligual
I do NOT believe any of the above....
You can have a mozaic... in a moziac... in a mozaic.... ad infinitum...
You want oatmeal porridge...One flavor
I want Hot and Sour soup... Many flavors
It is only in your mind that French is snubbed, because you want French to
be the base of all cooking.
I want to keep my right to eat any food I want with any flavor I want
I deny your right to impose on me only French cooking.....
>
> I take it that you are in favour of multiculturalism, then. You are for
> the preservation of a multitude of separate identities in Canada which
> contemplate each other but do not become one. They should all speak
> different languages, should all have vastly differing values.
Your thinking is too limited...
Expand your culture instead of locking it down to one form
Try to stretch your cultural and language view of the world...
Who are you to say that French is the only correct way to go...
Only a person of limited vista with be so foolish.....
>
> I don't find that to be a desirable model for anybody in Canada.
> It promotes divisiveness and national incoherence.
>
It's been done elsewhere.
Look at Belgium and Switzerland, and Singapore
If they can do it, so can we.
At least if we can get rid of the short-sighted and narrow-minded....
>
> If you cannot demonstrate that French is not threatened, that is, that it
> has achieved a steady state that can ensure its stability for the future,
you
> have failed to convince me that I should renounce measures such as Bill
101.
>
French in a steady state is the same as French in a dead state...
If you want French to evolve, you have to let it grow...
To let it grow you have to take the risk that it will not end up as you
wish...
In the same way, would you be stupid enough to tell your child and
grand-child and great-grandchild to be a doctor, because you think medicine
to be the only worthy profession...
Yet that is what you are trying to do with the cultural future of Quebec
You are trying to impose your belief that French is the only way to go
That is why you want me to guarantee that French will be in a steady state
for the next 5 or 55 generations
That is so arrogant...
Have you never heard of Hubris ???
>
> That is the difference between us. You pretend not to care about culture
and
> I don't. The truth about you is that you don't give a damn whether or not
> French survives. It is exactly because of people like you that
francophones,
> who DO care whether or not French survives, have to take measures such as
> Bill 101.
>
French will not die out in the next 50 years in Quebec or anywhere else.
It does not need your help to survive
You are nothing but a zealot, who has never really looked at what you so
zealously protect...
It does not need your protection
Your protection is like catching a beautiful butterfly.
You stick a pin in it and put it on display
You say to others, "Look at the beautiful butterfly"
I have saved it from the predators...
Meanwhile, the dead butterfly wiwl never have children to spread beauty to
future generations.
Because you have killed it and put it in a jar to protect it
A culture is exactly the same thing
You have to let it grow and spread on it's own...
People will enjoy it and spread it if it has value to them...
If you force it on them, you will poison it..
You will guarantee its demise...
>
> I hope you finally understand that you might as well stop posting
> any of your messages if you don't care about the healthy state of French
> in Quebec. You're not going to convince many francophone Quebecois,
> whether Federalist or Separatist, that it doesn't matter what language
> their great-grandchildren speak!
I have done so in the past, and I will continueto do so.
Because you and your kind are no different than those who went after
Gallileo and Copernicus because they dared to say that the earth wasn't
flat, or that the earth revolved around the sun
You think that culture and language and society are static things that can
be enshrined in Law...
So did the Catholic Church believe that the earth was flat and that they
could force their view on others against the evidence....
You are just another more modern form of those that believe that their view
will endure and thus needs their protection...
You are pissing in the wind and you are too stupid to feel it running down
your leg...
Look at cultural history, how close is the culture you live in, to the
culture of your parents and their parents. Go back a couple of hundred
years, and you cannot even imagine the culture of your ancestors....
Yet you and your arrogant friends are trying to dictate to the next
generations what their culture should be...
Any intelligent person, of any origin, has enough humility to KNOW, that
the world their children and grandchildren, not to mention the following
generations, will be beyond our ability to imagine..
Just look at your vocabulary, the majority of words you use are beyond the
comprehension of the vocabulary of possibly your parents not to mention
your great-grandparents.
And you want to dictate to your children, grandchildren,
great-grandchildren, great-great-grandchildren,
great-great-great-grandchildren. (you did say 5 generations)
>
>So why are you posting? If you aren't trying to convince any Quebecois to
> vote "NO" with the confidence that French will survive, what is your
motive
> in posting here?
>
The reason most intelligent Quebecois have said "NO" and will continue to
say "NO" is because they KNOW what I am saying is true.
Even though many have never thought about it.
Deep down they KNOW.
And when I bring it up, and explain it to them...
Then They REALLY KNOW what I'm talking about...
Then they really know, that what you are talking about is really not that
important
That's my motive
To stretch their view past your very short-term view of the future....
That is also why most Quebecois, of any language, want good governement,
instead of separatist time-wasting....
>
> It's clear that with your view on the unimportance of the survival of
French,
> it would disappear in Quebec, eroded by the powerful American
hyperculture.
>
> Ensuring the survival of a language is like preventing the exctinction of
> a species. It does not "lock down" opportunities for future generations,
as
> you put it. Quite the contraty, it broadens their opportunities.
>
Yes, but if in the process you destroy the existence of another culture and
language in your environment, as is being done to English, then your
rethoric takes on a different flavour....
When a large portion of the population leaves, with their money and
investments, and jobs.....
It surely limits and not broadens the opportunities...
>
> I think you should have taken more time to respond to my message. Your
quick
> response can't possibly have given you enough time for the kind of
reflection
> that was called for in my challenge to you.
>
I have been thinking about since I first encoutered a separatist 30 years
ago
Have you ????
>
> I'll give you another chance, if you want it.
>
I'll take it and use it against you and your kind....
Peter
T. Downing
On 21 Mar 1997 00:49:01 -0700, Tony Kondaks <tkon...@primenet.com>
wrote:
>Vincent Lupien <vhlu...@mit.edu> wrote:
>
>
>: That is not happening right now. Immigrants would rather ignore French and
>: form divisive pockets of culture here and there that do not blend with
>: mainstream Quebec society. This rejection of cultural sharing is what must stop.
>: "Sharing" does not mean simply to acknowledge the francophone reality - it means
>: to become one with it, and in the process to transform it with your own contribution.
>
>Vincent, do you know what "freedom of association" means?
Actually, it sounds very Vulcan. Perhaps a mind meld - no we went over
that ground last year with the brain-in-a-vat thread. Anyway, what
ever happened to Gilles Lupien?
M. Oink
Christian Lemay
Tony Kondaks <tkon...@primenet.com> a écrit dans l'article
<5guiq2$s...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>...
> Christian Lemay <c.l...@videotron.ca> wrote:
> : Je me demande bien dans quel genre de programme tu as participe. Toute
> : application pour obtenir un emploi doit etre faite par ecrit au
> : Gouvernement du Quebec et toutes les applications sont traitees.
>
> I worked as a political attache to a MNA. As an experiement, the MNA
> announced that he would help minority-language constituents -- because of
> their underrepresentation -- apply for Quebec civil service jobs. The
> only place this announcement appeared was in a local weekly
newspaper...on
> something like page 58!
>
> Well, for the next two weeks that is all we were involved in: the phone
> rang off the hook and people were coming into our office day and night to
> look over the announcements -- published weekly by the government --
> announcing the job opennings.
>
****************************************************************************
****
Et puis, que s'est-il passe? Est-ce que des anglophones ont eus des
emplois?
****************************************************************************
****
> : >
> : > It is, pure and simple, a result of having an English name and an
English
> : > accent why anglophones don't get civil service jobs in Quebec.
> : >
>
> :
> : Ca c'est de la paranoia. Tu crois qu'un gestionnaire ne choisirais pas
le
> : meilleur employe disponible parce qu'il a un nom anglais ou un accent
> : anglais, c'est ridicule. Je ne dis pas qu'il n'y a pas quelques cas de
> : raciste, mais ce n'est surement pas generalise.
>
> Christian, what other explanation could you possibly give for less than
1%
> representation in the civil service yet 12% actual population?
>
****************************************************************************
**********
Je t'ai deja parle des salaires, tu as coupe cette partie du texte sans me
donner tes commentaires. Moi je suis ingenieur et j'ai participe a
plusieurs comités de selection de personnels dans les annes 80 (le
gouvernement n'engage pratiquement plus depuis 1990). Plusieurs emplois
ont ete offerts a des anglophones pour les raisons suivantes: La plus
frequente, le salaire et la deuxieme est la facon dont les postes sont
combles dans la fonction publique et je m'explique. La majorite des
ministeres ont des employes repartis un peu partout dans la province.
Lorsqu'un poste devient vacant, l'emploi est offert en mutation,
c'est-a-dire que tout employe du gouvernement qui rencontre les criteres
d'embauche pour la fonction convoitee peut appliquer sur le poste et
l'obtenir, apres concours avec d'autres qui sont dans le meme cas que lui.
Il en decoule que lorsqu'un poste devient vacant pres des grands centres
urbains, il est presque toujours comble par mutation d'un employe
travaillant dans une region "eloignee" qui veut s'approcher d'une grande
ville. Par la suite, c'est le poste laisse vacant en region eloigne qui
doit etre comble et la, il n'y a souvent que peu d'Anglophones d'interesses
a s'expatrier de Montreal pour aller s'etablir sur la Cote Nord,
l'Abitibi, la Gaspésie ou le Nord du Quebec. C'est un sacrifice que les
Anglophones ne sont pas prets a faire. C'est vrai que c'est difficile de
laisser son petit royaume pour s'etablir dans des milieux presque
unilingues francais.
Christian Lemay
Tony Kondaks
Christian Lemay <c.l...@videotron.ca> wrote:
: Et puis, que s'est-il passe? Est-ce que des anglophones ont eus des
: emplois?
No...although I would have like to have done the project longer and
followed up even more on the applications. Unfortunately, the politician
I worked for got interested in another project and we never went back to
it.
: Je t'ai deja parle des salaires, tu as coupe cette partie du texte sans me
: donner tes commentaires.
I cut it because I had nothing to say on the subject although I was
surprised that all of the categories you listed made as much as they
did...I know the point of what you wrote was to show that the civil
servants made less than what was made in the private sector; I suppose I
was surprised they made that much even in the private sector!
: Moi je suis ingenieur et j'ai participe a
: plusieurs comités de selection de personnels dans les annes 80 (le
: gouvernement n'engage pratiquement plus depuis 1990). Plusieurs emplois
: ont ete offerts a des anglophones pour les raisons suivantes: La plus
: frequente, le salaire et la deuxieme est la facon dont les postes sont
: combles dans la fonction publique et je m'explique. La majorite des
: ministeres ont des employes repartis un peu partout dans la province.
: Lorsqu'un poste devient vacant, l'emploi est offert en mutation,
: c'est-a-dire que tout employe du gouvernement qui rencontre les criteres
: d'embauche pour la fonction convoitee peut appliquer sur le poste et
: l'obtenir, apres concours avec d'autres qui sont dans le meme cas que lui.
: Il en decoule que lorsqu'un poste devient vacant pres des grands centres
: urbains, il est presque toujours comble par mutation d'un employe
: travaillant dans une region "eloignee" qui veut s'approcher d'une grande
: ville. Par la suite, c'est le poste laisse vacant en region eloigne qui
: doit etre comble et la, il n'y a souvent que peu d'Anglophones d'interesses
: a s'expatrier de Montreal pour aller s'etablir sur la Cote Nord,
: l'Abitibi, la Gaspésie ou le Nord du Quebec. C'est un sacrifice que les
: Anglophones ne sont pas prets a faire. C'est vrai que c'est difficile de
: laisser son petit royaume pour s'etablir dans des milieux presque
: unilingues francais.
Again, i would still like to see the figures for the Montreal region for
those jobs that do NOT require relocation.
Tony Kondaks
Vincent Lupien <vhlu...@mit.edu> wrote:
: If you cannot demonstrate that French is not threatened, that is, that it
: has achieved a steady state that can ensure its stability for the future, you
: have failed to convince me that I should renounce measures such as Bill 101.
: THERE IT IS! I knew I would find it eventually.
: That is the difference between us. You pretend not to care about culture and
: I don't. The truth about you is that you don't give a damn whether or not
: French survives. It is exactly because of people like you that francophones,
: who DO care whether or not French survives, have to take measures such as
: Bill 101. I hope you finally understand that you might as well stop posting
: any of your messages if you don't care about the healthy state of French
: in Quebec. You're not going to convince many francophone Quebecois, whether
: Federalist or Separatist, that it doesn't matter what language their great-
: grandchildren speak! So why are you posting? If you aren't trying to convince
: any Quebecois to vote "NO" with the confidence that French will survive,
: what is your motive in posting here?
But, Vincent, French is a LANGUAGE, it is NOT a person...people have
rights and freedoms, languages don't.
By all means, preserve and promote the French language and culture...but
if one inch of a unilingual snot-nosed big, fat English woman at Eaton's
individual rights are violated in the pursuit of preserving and protecting
French, then it is not worth it.
There does not have to be any conflict between helping French and TOTALLY
preserving individual rights.
Tony Kondaks
Vincent Lupien <vhlu...@mit.edu> wrote:
: Ensuring the survival of a language is like preventing the exctinction of
: a species. It does not "lock down" opportunities for future generations, as
: you put it. Quite the contraty, it broadens their opportunities.
...so how does restricting the choice and opportunites of francophones
(e.g. preventing them and immigrants from going to English school)
"broaden their opportunity"?
Your English is perfect, Vincent. Having such a command of the evil
English hyperlanguage....does it make you LESS of a francophone? Or,
perhaps, it has BROADENED your life opportunities (you are, after all,
attending one of the premier English language universities in the world),
thus making you perhaps a STRONGER individual unit of the glorious
quebecois collective?
Or perhaps you would like to preserve the knowledge of English just for
the elites of Quebec -- of which you seem to be in the process of being
groomed? The elites can then, in turn, get the best jobs because of
their bilingualism, and make all the choices for those who weren't as
fortunate as you?
Christian Lemay
Peter S. Saly <Pe...@saly.com> a écrit dans l'article
<01bc362a$8a19bc40$45258dd0@spim_a.isd.net>...
>
> It's been done elsewhere.
> Look at Belgium and Switzerland, and Singapore
> If they can do it, so can we.
> At least if we can get rid of the short-sighted and narrow-minded....
>
> Peter
Tres interessant le choix de la Belgique et de la Suisse comme comparaison.
Sais-tu de quoi tu parles?
En Belgique, quand tu es en Wallonie, seul les services en francais sont
disponibles. Et quand tu es en Flandre, seul les services en flamand sont
disponibles. La Belgique est separee par une frontiere linguistique et la
revision constitutionnelle de 1993 a cree de part et d'autre de cette
frontiere des entites federees qui sont, en pratique, des Etats autonomes
disposant d'un parlement, d'un gouvernement et dotes d'un large pouvoir, y
compris en matiere de relations internationales. Par bien des aspects, la
Belgique apparait desormais plus comme une confederation que comme une
federation.
Les premieres lois linguistiques belges datent de 1932. A cette epoque, la
frontiere linguistique pouvait encore, legalement se deplacer, ce qui n'est
plus le cas maintenant. La langue d'une commune etait obligatoirement celle
de la majorite simple de la population ( bien oui 50% + 1) . La frontiere
linguistique s'est deplacee au cours des ans puis s'est stabilisee pour
devenir definitive. Et ceux qui font partie d'une minorite n'ont qu'a
demenager s'ils veulent obtenir des services dans leurs langues!!!
Maintenant la Suisse: La Constitution suisse enumere trois langues
nationales: L'allemand, le francais, et l'italien(s'y ajoute le romanche,
officiel mais non national). La particularite de la Suisse tient au
principe de la territorialite des langue, c'est-a-dire au droit des cantons
a fixer leur(s) langues officielle(s) et a en imposer l'usage exclusif sur
leur territoire. Sur 26 cantons, 4 sont unilingues francais, 3 sont
bilingues francais-allemand, 1 unilingue italien, 1 unilingue romanche et
15 unilingues allemand. La territorialite des langues inscrite dans la
constitution federale, interdit desormais tout glissement linguistique,
sauf, peut-etre, dans quelques communes limitrophes des cantons bilingues.
Les Jurassiens (francais) sont particulierement attentifs au respect de la
territorialite des langues, car le Jura sud Bernois a ete envahi au XIX et
au debut du XX siecle par des imigrants bernois(allemand) , dont le nombre
a freine l'assimilation.
Tu peux voir qu'il n'y a pas que les quebecois qui veulent proteger leur
langue. Est-ce que tu veux vraiment suivre l'exemple de la Belgique ou de
la Suisse?
Christian Lemay
Tony Kondaks
Peter S. Saly <Pe...@saly.com> wrote:
I propose a new Bill 101:
The object of this bill is to preserve and promote Peter S. Saly's
most recent response to Vincent Lupien on this thread.
It is a classic and cuts right to the heart of the matter.
I eagerly await Vincent's response (if it is, indeed, possible for him to
respond to it).
Wes Warner
In message <01bc36ea$b80f7840$d751fdcf@ChristianLemay> - "Christian Lemay"
<c.l...@videotron.ca>22 Mar 1997 18:02:56 GMT writes:
:>
:>
:>
:>Peter S. Saly <Pe...@saly.com> a écrit dans l'article
*** Sounds to me like a good plan.
All that matters is where the
lines are for the linguistic zones.
It has to be at the community/county
level --with distances measured in a few kilometers --
as in the multi lingual countries you
describe, since that is the point of delivery of
gov. services.
I'm sure since Belgum and Switzerland are
democracies with some sense of human rights,
that their language laws concern
efficient delivery of Gov. Services,
and do not fuck about with language use
by priviate enterprise or individuals
(sign laws and such human-rights abusive trash
that Quebec secessionists are temporarily fond of; I mean).
Most sane people have no desire to waste time
in communication with civil servants -- they are
seldom civil, and don't want to serve. Thus
an 'official' language in the proper human rights
sensitive use of the term is not really a big deal
for most people most of the time.
The Canadian approach to language of gov. service
delivery in a locality "where numbers warrant"
is simply a gentler version of the same thing.
Wes
End
Christian Lemay
Tony Kondaks <tkon...@primenet.com> a écrit dans l'article
<5gvhie$q...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>...
> Christian Lemay <c.l...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>
> : Je t'ai deja parle des salaires, tu as coupe cette partie du texte sans
me
> : donner tes commentaires.
>
> I cut it because I had nothing to say on the subject although I was
> surprised that all of the categories you listed made as much as they
> did...I know the point of what you wrote was to show that the civil
> servants made less than what was made in the private sector; I suppose I
> was surprised they made that much even in the private sector!
>
Si tu as trouve les salaires eleves, tu serais ahuri de voir les salaires
au gouvernement federal et malheureusement aussi a Hydro-Quebec.
> tkondaks
Le pourcentage d'emplois qui sont combles directement a Montreal doit etre
infime, moi je dirais moins de 1%, il y a toujours des employes des regions
qui veulent aller dans les grands centres.
En plus, depuis maintenant plus de quinze ans (approximativement),
lorsqu'il y a un concours, tous les participants ayant une note a 10% pres
du meilleur sont classes dans le niveau 1. Parmi ce groupe de niveau 1, le
gestionnaire qui a besoin d'un employe, doit choisir en priorite: les
femmes. S'il n'y en a pas alors il doit choisir quelqu'un d'une communaute
etnique puis encore une fois s'il n'y en a pas, les minorites
linguistiques. Les handicapes sont consideres mais, n'ayant jamais eu a
traite le cas, je ne me souviens plus si c'est avant ou apres les femmes.
C'est la procedure de discrimination positive pour l'embauche qui est
actuellement en vigueur au gouvernement.
Comme tu peux le voir, les anglophones sont defavorises par rapport aux
communautes etniques (a moins d'etre une femme), mais favorises par rapport
aux francophones. Et comme les gens des communautes etniques n'hesitent pas
a accepter des emplois en region, sachant tres bien que un de ces jours un
poste se liberera a Montreal, il n'y a effectivement que peu d'anglophones.
Et tu peux savoir qu'il y a des candidats francophones de frustres, parce
que meme si un francophone termine premier d'un concours, il est fort
possible (a moins d'etre une femme) qu'il n'obtienne pas d'emploi.
Christian Lemay
chipie
----------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
> tkondaks __ __ ____ ___ ___ ____
> tkon...@primenet.com /__)/__) / / / / /_ /\ / /_ /
> / / \ / / / / /__ / \/ /___ /-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Luc Richard
Patrick Lepine wrote:
> It would help if LeGault knew what she were talking about, wouldn't it.
> When the primary leaders of separatism claim that the MAIN reason for
> separation is to have a French country, it seems rather plain to those
> with open eyes that an independent Quebec is only interested in persons
> of a particular ethnic origin. We want "nous les vrais Quebecois"
> (which you may remember was used to refer to the 60% of Francophones who
> voted Oui) to have the the tools of the state.
> Separatists try to claim that they aren't racist by pointing to others.
> So what? If a LA cop beats a black man for speeding and puts him in a
> hospital, is he less racist than the LA cop who shoots a black man for
> speeding? Racism is not a question of degree. You can't be a more
> tolerant racist than a bad racist.
De deux choses l'une...
OU bien t'apprends à lire et à comprendre le français ou bien
tu fais encore exprès pour mélanger sciemment et malicieusement
ce que TU veux comprendre.
Tant qu'à moi, je crois que tu travailles bien fort sur ma deuxième
supposition.
Bonne chance et bon succès!
Vous êtres démasqué, môoossieu !!!!
Luc Richard
Patrick Lepine wrote:
> It would help if LeGault knew what she were talking about, wouldn't it.
> When the primary leaders of separatism claim that the MAIN reason for
> separation is to have a French country, it seems rather plain to those
> with open eyes that an independent Quebec is only interested in persons
> of a particular ethnic origin. We want "nous les vrais Quebecois"
> (which you may remember was used to refer to the 60% of Francophones who
> voted Oui) to have the the tools of the state.
> Separatists try to claim that they aren't racist by pointing to others.
> So what? If a LA cop beats a black man for speeding and puts him in a
> hospital, is he less racist than the LA cop who shoots a black man for
> speeding? Racism is not a question of degree. You can't be a more
> tolerant racist than a bad racist.
De deux choses l'une...
OU bien t'apprends à lire et à comprendre le français ou bien
tu fais encore exprès pour mélanger sciemment et malicieusement
ce que TU veux comprendre.
Tant qu'à moi, je crois que tu travailles bien fort sur ma deuxième
supposition.
Bonne chance et bon succès!
Vous êtes démasqué, môoossieu !!!!
Gilles Rioux
Peter S. Saly <Pe...@saly.com> écrivait :
> Gilles Rioux wrote in article
> >
> > <snip>
> > La loi 101 a été mise en place pour que cesse l'érosion du français au
> > Québec. Durant les années 60 à Montréal, le taux d'anglicisation des
> > immigrants *et* des francophones dans la région de Montréal était
> > comparable à ce qu'il est présentement dans le reste du Canada, i.e.
> > très élevé. La perpétuation de cette tendance aurait mené à un
> > affaiblissement tel de la position du français qu'il aurait pratiquement
> > disparu de l'île en quelques décennies.
>
> Au moins, c'est l'excuse que tu as choisi de croire.
Je n'ai pas «choisi» de croire. L'explication que je donne est celle-là
même qui a été donnée par les concepteurs de la loi, un gouvernement
dûment élu. Ce serait plutôt toi qui choisis de ne pas croire en cette
explication. C'est ton droit le plus strict; j'ai cependant le même
droit, et la majorité de la population du Québec est de mon bord.
> Mais quand une personne est restreinte dans le choix de langue d'education
> basee sur le pays d'origine, ou la langue etudie par le parent au primaire
> et secondaire,
> Alors, le bill 101 se qualifie comme une loi raciste....
Depuis quand la race se définit par le pays d'origine? Dans ses
principes, la loi 101 impose le français à tous. À l'origine, la
permission d'avoir des écoles anglaises a été concédée aux enfants dont
les parents avaient étudié en anglais au Québec. Plus tard, la cour
suprême du Canada a étendu ce principe aux enfants de ceux qui avaient
étudié en anglais au Canada.
J'ai beau me forcer le coco, je ne vois pas où le concept de race
intervient dans ce schéma.
> De toute facon, meme avec le bill 101, la deterioration de la qualite de
> francais parle et ecrit au Quebec est tel, que visiblement cette loi
> raciste n'etait pas la bonne solution....
>
Tu as fait des études sur cette détérioration? Dans les années 1900, en
France, on a donné une dictée à un échantillon représentatif d'écoliers.
On a repris la même dictée dans les années 80 avec nos «cancres» à nous.
Quel fut le résultat, d'après toi?
D'autre part, l'amélioration de la qualité du français est la
responsabilité des écoles, et non de la loi 101 qui, elle, vise à donner
un caractère officiel, universel au français dans l'administration et le
travail. La loi 101 affirme que le français est la langue commune des
Québécois, quelles que soient leur race, leur religion, leur origine.
> >
> > Certains ont comparé les inconvénients vécus par les anglophones à
> > l'holocauste et continuent à le faire. Est-il besoin d'expliquer le
> > ridicule d'une telle affirmation?
> >
>
> Je suis d'accord, qu'une comparaison avec l'holocauste est extremement
> ridicule.
> Mais, le reduction de la population est le resultat direct d'action legale
> et autre au Quebec
> Et ce resultat a ete atteint par des actions qui ne peuvent pas etres
> considirees comme etant respectueux des non francophones du Quebec
>
Par «réduction de la population» je comprends que tu veuilles parler du
taux d'émigration. Je ne nie pas qu'un certain nombre de personnes aient
pu nous quitter au lieu d'avoir à apprendre le français. C'est une
langue difficile à maîtriser, j'en conviens, mais ces difficultés sont
loin d'être insurmontables. Je rencontre chaque jour beaucoup de
personnes qui me parlent en français malgré le fait évident que ce ne
soit pas leur langue maternelle.
D'autre part, les listes d'aspirants immigrants sont-elles vides? Je ne
le crois pas.
> > D'autres, comme Peter, y voient une intention malicieuse. Si c'était le
> > cas, les rues de Montréal seraient pleines de gens qui s'insulteraient
> > et s'échangeraient des gnons constamment. Au contraire, la civilité qui
> > marque les rapports entre les deux communautés infirme toute
> > interprétation semblable.
> >
>
> Le fait que les deux communautes sont majoritairement civils envers l'un
> l'autre ne change pas que la restriction forcee sur les anglophones a ete,
> en fait, sinon en intention, malicieuse.
> Aussi, ceux qui ont imposes le bill 101 n'ont jamais represente la majorite
> de la population sur le plan separatiste...
> Sinon, la separation serait un fait aujourd'hui...
>
> Et de temps a autre, les attitudes malicieuse sortent des bouches memes de
> ceux qui sont les plus qualifies de ne pas exprimer ces attitudes (voire
> Parizeau apres le referendum...)
>
> Peter
Serait-ce-tu qu'on leur prête des intentions qu'ils n'ont jamais eues?
Ce qui expliquerait bien des choses....
--
Gilles Rioux, Montréal, Québec
Peter S. Saly
Tony Kondaks wrote
>
> I propose a new Bill 101:
>
> The object of this bill is to preserve and promote Peter S. Saly's
> most recent response to Vincent Lupien on this thread.
>
> It is a classic and cuts right to the heart of the matter.
>
> I eagerly await Vincent's response (if it is, indeed, possible for him to
> respond to it).
>
geez Tony,
Send me a copy....
I didn't realize it was that good, and erased it...
Peter
Christian Lemay
Wes Warner <w...@servtech.com> a écrit dans l'article
<5h1nn2$ipj$1...@post.servtech.com>...
> Sounds to me like a good plan.
> All that matters is where the
> lines are for the linguistic zones.
> It has to be at the community/county
> level --with distances measured in a few kilometers --
> as in the multi lingual countries you
> describe, since that is the point of delivery of
> gov. services.
> I'm sure since Belgum and Switzerland are
> democracies with some sense of human rights,
> that their language laws concern
> efficient delivery of Gov. Services,
> and do not fuck about with language use
> by priviate enterprise or individuals
> (sign laws and such human-rights abusive trash
> that Quebec secessionists are temporarily fond of; I mean).
En Belgique, la langue de travail, les services gouvernementaux et
l'education sont fonction de la partie du pays ou vous etes: En Flandre, la
langue de travail et l'education sont en Flamand et les services
gouvernementaux sont aussi en Flamand. Meme si le francais et le flamand
sont les 2 langues officielles en Belgique, les services en francais ne
sont pas garanties en Flandre. C'est le meme principe en Wallonie ou les
services en Flamand ne sont pas garanties. Ces Belges sont encore plus
intolerants que ces mauvais separatistes quebecois, je dirais meme presque
autant que les anglophones du Canada!!!
En Suisse, a l'exception des cantons bilingues, seul la langue choisi par
le canton est employee. C'est l'unilinguiste dans l'education, le travail
et les services gouvernementaux (a l'exception des services federaux). La
aussi les Suisses sont plus intolerants que les separatistes quebecois.
Je n'ai pas trouve de loi restreignant l'affichage en Suisse et en
Belgique mais en pratique, sauf pour les menus de restaurant et la
signalisation routiere, il semble que l'affichage soit pratiquement
unilingue.
> The Canadian approach to language of gov. service
> delivery in a locality "where numbers warrant"
> is simply a gentler version of the same thing.
Ils sont bien traites ces anglophones au Quebec.
Christian Lemay
----------
Wes Warner
In message <01bc3a83$416b2940$LocalHost@ChristianLemay> - "Christian Lemay"
<c.l...@videotron.ca>27 Mar 1997 07:52:46 GMT writes:
:>
:>
:>
:>Wes Warner <w...@servtech.com> a écrit dans l'article
[snip stuff re language freedom
in Belgium and Switzerland ]
:>> Sounds to me like a good plan.
:>> All that matters is where the
:>> lines are for the linguistic zones.
:>> It has to be at the community/county
:>> level --with distances measured in a few kilometers --
:>> as in the multi lingual countries you
:>> describe, since that is the point of delivery of
:>> gov. services.
:>
:>> I'm sure since Belgum and Switzerland are
:>> democracies with some sense of human rights,
:>> that their language laws concern
:>> efficient delivery of Gov. Services,
:>> and do not fuck about with language use
:>> by priviate enterprise or individuals
:>> (sign laws and such human-rights abusive trash
:>> that Quebec secessionists are temporarily fond of; I mean).
:>
:>En Belgique, la langue de travail, les services gouvernementaux et
:>l'education sont fonction de la partie du pays ou vous etes:
*** Fine. In Quebec the language of work and of
gov. services should be according to where
you live in Quebec. English in English areas
(eg Montreal) French in French areas (eg Three Rivers).
:>En Flandre, la
:>langue de travail et l'education sont en Flamand et les services
:>gouvernementaux sont aussi en Flamand. Meme si le francais et le flamand
:>sont les 2 langues officielles en Belgique, les services en francais ne
:>sont pas garanties en Flandre. C'est le meme principe en Wallonie ou les
:>services en Flamand ne sont pas garanties. Ces Belges sont encore plus
:>intolerants que ces mauvais separatistes quebecois, je dirais meme presque
:>autant que les anglophones du Canada!!!
:>
:>En Suisse, a l'exception des cantons bilingues, seul la langue choisi par
:>le canton est employee. C'est l'unilinguiste dans l'education, le travail
:>et les services gouvernementaux (a l'exception des services federaux). La
:>aussi les Suisses sont plus intolerants que les separatistes quebecois.
*** In all that you saw above you do not say
what the local laws are. What you say is true
by 'observation' but what in fact does the
'legislation' say ??
:>Je n'ai pas trouve de loi restreignant l'affichage en Suisse et en
:>Belgique mais en pratique, sauf pour les menus de restaurant et la
:>signalisation routiere, il semble que l'affichage soit pratiquement
:>unilingue.
*** "In practice" are words that describe what
people do -- it is best that people are
free to do what they want to do, since
they will usually know what is best for
them -- better than some remote regulator.
Produce the Belgian and Swiss laws
that "command" the behaviour you report above
for language of work. You will be unable to,
in exactly the same way, and for the same
reason that you cannot do so for sign laws.
The reason is that such a law would be an
abuse of the human rights of individuals.
Concerning 'language of education', it is
obvious that Belgian and Swiss students are
well taught in, and expected to become truly
fluent in the languages of their country.
It is this teaching and expectation that makes
the language divisions by canton/county that
you report, actually work in practice.
:>> The Canadian approach to language of gov. service
:>> delivery in a locality "where numbers warrant"
:>> is simply a gentler version of the same thing.
:>Ils sont bien traites ces anglophones au Quebec.
*** Ask them.
There is the same undemocratic paternalistic
tone in what you say as there would be if I
were to say:
"IIls sont bien traites ces francophones au Canada."
Wes
:>Christian Lemay
:>
:>
:>
:>
:>----------
Christian Lemay
Wes Warner <w...@servtech.com> a écrit dans l'article
<5hdto9$f...@tofu.alt.net>...
In message <01bc3a83$416b2940$LocalHost@ChristianLemay> - "Christian Lemay"
<c.l...@videotron.ca>27 Mar 1997 07:52:46 GMT writes:
:>
:>
:>
:>Wes Warner <w...@servtech.com> a écrit dans l'article
[snip stuff re language freedom
in Belgium and Switzerland ]
:>> I'm sure since Belgum and Switzerland are
:>> democracies with some sense of human rights,
:>> that their language laws concern
:>> efficient delivery of Gov. Services,
:>> and do not fuck about with language use
:>> by priviate enterprise or individuals
:>> (sign laws and such human-rights abusive trash
:>> that Quebec secessionists are temporarily fond of; I mean).
:>
:>En Belgique, la langue de travail, les services gouvernementaux et
:>l'education sont fonction de la partie du pays ou vous etes:
>*** Fine. In Quebec the language of work and of
> gov. services should be according to where
> you live in Quebec. English in English areas
> (eg Montreal) French in French areas (eg Three Rivers).
Et que fais-tu des anglophones vivant a Quebec, en Estrie, en Gaspesie et
sur la Cote Nord? Tu les laisse tomber completement? Et les francophones de
Montreal?. Je crois que ta proposition n'est pas a point ou est le fruit
d'un esprit etroit et egoiste.
:>En Flandre, la
:>langue de travail et l'education sont en Flamand et les services
:>gouvernementaux sont aussi en Flamand. Meme si le francais et le flamand
:>sont les 2 langues officielles en Belgique, les services en francais ne
:>sont pas garanties en Flandre. C'est le meme principe en Wallonie ou les
:>services en Flamand ne sont pas garanties. Ces Belges sont encore plus
:>intolerants que ces mauvais separatistes quebecois, je dirais meme
presque
:>autant que les anglophones du Canada!!!
:>
:>En Suisse, a l'exception des cantons bilingues, seul la langue choisi par
:>le canton est employee. C'est l'unilinguiste dans l'education, le travail
:>et les services gouvernementaux (a l'exception des services federaux). La
:>aussi les Suisses sont plus intolerants que les separatistes quebecois.
>*** In all that you saw above you do not say
> what the local laws are. What you say is true
> by 'observation' but what in fact does the
> 'legislation' say ??
Mon enonce n'etait peut-etre pas clair. Plus precisement, lorsqu'un canton
adopte l'unilinguiste, c'est par une loi qu'il le fait et cette loi impose
l'USAGE EXCLUSIF DE CETTE LANGUE SUR SON TERRITOIRE.
:>Je n'ai pas trouve de loi restreignant l'affichage en Suisse et en
:>Belgique mais en pratique, sauf pour les menus de restaurant et la
:>signalisation routiere, il semble que l'affichage soit pratiquement
:>unilingue.
>*** "In practice" are words that describe what
> people do -- it is best that people are
> free to do what they want to do, since
> they will usually know what is best for
> them -- better than some remote regulator.
> Produce the Belgian and Swiss laws
> that "command" the behaviour you report above
> for language of work. You will be unable to,
> in exactly the same way, and for the same
> reason that you cannot do so for sign laws.
> The reason is that such a law would be an
> abuse of the human rights of individuals.
Loi sur l'utilisation du flamand et du francais en Belgique: Atlas de la
langue francaise publie chez Borduas, Paris 1995 page 55
Loi sur l'utilisation des langues dans les cantons Suisse: Atlas de la
langue francaise publie chez Borduas, Paris 1995 page 61.
Dans les lois Belges et Suisse, on parle d'USAGE EXCLUSIF DE LA LANGUE.
L'education et la langue de travail y sont specifiquement mentionnees alors
qu'il n'est pas fait mention de l'affichage dans les extraits de lois de la
reference citee. Cela ne veut pas dire qu'il n'y a pas de restrictions mais
que ma recherche n'est pas suffisante pour l'affirmer ou l'infirmer.
> Concerning 'language of education', it is
> obvious that Belgian and Swiss students are
> well taught in, and expected to become truly
> fluent in the languages of their country.
> It is this teaching and expectation that makes
> the language divisions by canton/county that
> you report, actually work in practice.
:>> The Canadian approach to language of gov. service
:>> delivery in a locality "where numbers warrant"
:>> is simply a gentler version of the same thing.
:>Ils sont bien traites ces anglophones au Quebec.
>*** Ask them.
> There is the same undemocratic paternalistic
> tone in what you say as there would be if I
> were to say:
> "IIls sont bien traites ces francophones au Canada."
> Wes
Je crois que c'est Peter S. Saly qui a amene les exemples de la Belgique et
de la Suisse comme modele de la tolerance pour leurs lois linguistiques.
Moi, ce que j'ai voulu demontrer, c'est que ces deux pays ont des lois
beaucoup plus intolerantes que les lois quebecoises.
Le ton que j'ai employe pour qualifier le traitement des anglophones au
Quebec n'etait ni antidemocratique, ni paternaliste, mais bien sarcastique
(c'etait peut-etre trop subtile pour toi). Quoiqu'il en soit, cela nous a
permis de savoir que tu es d'avis que les francophones sont mals traites au
Canada.
Christian Lemay
Wes Warner
In message <01bc3d9d$14e764c0$5650fdcf@ChristianLemay> - "Christian Lemay"
[snip]
:>:>> I'm sure since Belgum and Switzerland are
:>:>> democracies with some sense of human rights,
:>:>> that their language laws concern
:>:>> efficient delivery of Gov. Services,
:>:>> and do not fuck about with language use
:>:>> by priviate enterprise or individuals
:>:>> (sign laws and such human-rights abusive trash
:>:>> that Quebec secessionists are temporarily fond of; I mean).
[snip]
:>>*** In all that you saw above you do not say
:>> what the local laws are. What you say is true
:>> by 'observation' but what in fact does the
:>> 'legislation' say ??
:>
:>Mon enonce n'etait peut-etre pas clair. Plus precisement, lorsqu'un canton
:>adopte l'unilinguiste, c'est par une loi qu'il le fait et cette loi impose
:>l'USAGE EXCLUSIF DE CETTE LANGUE SUR SON TERRITOIRE.
*** So what is the penalty if two people are
overheard conversing in a 'banned' language;
death by firing squad or what.
So what is the penalty if some German speaking
Swiss in a French Canton puts up a sign in German
in front of his Bavarian style Beer Garden;
is he castrated on the spot.
Do the Swiss have 'Language Police' to enforce
what YOU say are their laws?
You have been brain washed so much you are brain
dead. <he said, somewhat irritated>
:>> Produce the Belgian and Swiss laws
:>> that "command" the behaviour you report above
:>> for language of work. You will be unable to,
:>> in exactly the same way, and for the same
:>> reason that you cannot do so for sign laws.
:>> The reason is that such a law would be an
:>> abuse of the human rights of individuals.
:>
:>Loi sur l'utilisation du flamand et du francais en Belgique: Atlas de la
:>langue francaise publie chez Borduas, Paris 1995 page 55
:>
:>Loi sur l'utilisation des langues dans les cantons Suisse: Atlas de la
:>langue francaise publie chez Borduas, Paris 1995 page 61.
:>
:>Dans les lois Belges et Suisse, on parle d'USAGE EXCLUSIF DE LA LANGUE.
*** So who must use the exclusive language exclusively ?
You are confused. The law describes and limits
an 'entitlement' of the public to service in the
local majority language. The law acts only on the
actions of civil service. It says the public must be served
by the civil service in the local majority language.
The Swiss and Belgian law does not limit the free
expression of Swiss or Belgian minorities. They are
free:
to speak to each other,
to associate into companies that work in,
to put up signs in,
any damn language they chose to.
If some local shit head official decided otherwise
he would be putting himself in personal danger from
the people he was screwing with.
[snip]
*** You are deceiving yourself or lying to
deceive others. There is no
language law anywhere that intrudes into
the human right to free expression and
free association to the extent Quebec's
law does. Why do you think it was condemned
by the UN ?
Wes
Doug McLeod
Christian Lemay wrote:
>
> :>> I'm sure since Belgum and Switzerland are
> :>> democracies with some sense of human rights,
> :>> that their language laws concern
> :>> efficient delivery of Gov. Services,
> :>> and do not fuck about with language use
> :>> by priviate enterprise or individuals
> :>> (sign laws and such human-rights abusive trash
> :>> that Quebec secessionists are temporarily fond of; I mean).
Please! Is this not more of the Trudeau inspired bullshit that
attempts to compare some tiny European countries which have been overrun
by a variety of armies during the last centuries, (each of which have
left their mark) with a geographical land mass that covers four time
zones and is itself made up of a great variety of immigrants? This
type of stupidity is rather embarrassing. Why not try to put 160 people
in a Cessna 172 instead of an Airbus 320? Hell they're both airplanes
aren't they??
FYI go to Belgium! (there's a rather nice bar in Zeebrugge
called Bar New Corner where the customs agents from the port go
occcasionally and *they'll* tell you why the language policies in Belgium
ae so assinine. The people on the Canadian praries are *never* going to
learn french. Period. It is a foreign culture and language as many of
them are Unkranian and german decent. How the hell can you tell them
that their culture isn't important enough to rate but they *must* learn
another one?? Especially one that they would never use unless they
travel about three thousand miles because no one in there area speaks
it?? (Not to mention that trying to get reasonably proficient in a
language that is not used in your area and you can't practice is a bit
boneheaded) As well, in Belgium driving fifteen miles take you from
french to flemish to dutch areas. The same distance in canada in some
cases won't get you of your own property.
> >*** Fine. In Quebec the language of work and of
> > gov. services should be according to where
> > you live in Quebec. English in English areas
> > (eg Montreal) French in French areas (eg Three Rivers).
>
> >*** In all that you saw above you do not say
> > what the local laws are. What you say is true
> > by 'observation' but what in fact does the
> > 'legislation' say ??
There are no laws in Belgium there is only convention. Only in
Canada have we tried to force feed culture and language and rasie one
above all others when we are a country made up of a great variety.
The UN has told Quebec that bill 101 is in violation of human
rights standards to which Canada is a signatory nation. In comparison,
Canadians in general have never objected to francophones using thier
mother tongue. They have simply required that when talking to the rest
of the contry it makes far more sense to use a language that all
immigrants Scots, Germans, Chinese, Ukrainian etc have adapted to for
common useage.
> >*** "In practice" are words that describe what
> > people do -- it is best that people are
> > free to do what they want to do, since
> > they will usually know what is best for
> > them -- better than some remote regulator.
>
> > Produce the Belgian and Swiss laws
> > that "command" the behaviour you report above
> > for language of work. You will be unable to,
> > in exactly the same way, and for the same
> > reason that you cannot do so for sign laws.
> > The reason is that such a law would be an
> > abuse of the human rights of individuals.
Like telling children of immigrants that they are not allowed to
use their mother tongues in school hallways or school yards?? And most
people thought the _Master Race_ was a Nazi concept! Can you imagine the
same thing being used on francophones??
> > Concerning 'language of education', it is
> > obvious that Belgian and Swiss students are
> > well taught in, and expected to become truly
> > fluent in the languages of their country.
> > It is this teaching and expectation that makes
> > the language divisions by canton/county that
> > you report, actually work in practice.
This is because the remnants of each occupying army have left
their mark. There is actually an interesting story behind to a statue of
two knights in the town square in Brugge. One of the invading armies had
invaded and forced every one to use their language. They invaders
however over the years and because of the proximity in Europe had also
begun to assimilate into the Felmish culture. These tow knights however
knew that the invaders could not make two of the more gutteral sounds in
the Flemish language and one night they began a purge of the invaders by
going throughout the city and killing anyone that could not repeat
properly the two words. Language in Belgium is still one of their sore
points as well.
> :>> The Canadian approach to language of gov. service
> :>> delivery in a locality "where numbers warrant"
> :>> is simply a gentler version of the same thing.
I disagree. My opinion is that the "where numbers warrant" is a
cop out by politicians that refuse to set standards and deal with a
problem, istead letting it fester forever. In B.C. for instance with
less than a 1% francophone population, (about 10.8% chinese) there are
those who say "the numbers warrant" franco services.
I greatly enjoy the joie de vivre, people and culture, of old
Montreal (and Cresent street) and love the architechture of old Quebec.
There can be no question that the Francophones and the french language is
a critical and integral part of that section of Canada nor shuold there
be any doubt anyone's mind that just as the person from British Columbia
that wants to work in Chicoutimi is going to have to learn French, so to
is the person that wants to work outside the limited scope of the
Quebecquois culture going to have to learn english.
The problem I have is that the government of this country uses a
piece of legislation based on the demographics of one section of this
country a century ago to drive this country into conflict and the 21
Century. Such ignorance, lack of foresight and inability to consider the
way the country grew and opened up higlights the fact that the current
gruop should be sterilized in case such stupidity is hereditary.
Christian Lemay
Wes Warner <w...@servtech.com> a écrit dans l'article
<5hoki0$mqa$1...@post.servtech.com>...
> In message <01bc3d9d$14e764c0$5650fdcf@ChristianLemay> - "Christian
Lemay"
> <c.l...@videotron.ca> writes:
> :>
> :>
> :>
> :>Wes Warner <w...@servtech.com> a écrit dans l'article
>
> :>>*** In all that you saw above you do not say
> :>> what the local laws are. What you say is true
> :>> by 'observation' but what in fact does the
> :>> 'legislation' say ??
> :>
> :>Mon enonce n'etait peut-etre pas clair. Plus precisement, lorsqu'un
canton
> :>adopte l'unilinguiste, c'est par une loi qu'il le fait et cette loi
impose
> :>l'USAGE EXCLUSIF DE CETTE LANGUE SUR SON TERRITOIRE.
>
> *** So what is the penalty if two people are
> overheard conversing in a 'banned' language;
> death by firing squad or what.
>
What is the penalty if two people are
overheard conversing in english in Quebec?
Tu es vraiment un cretin, il faut tout t'expliquer jusqu'a la derniere
virgule et encore, tu reussis a extrapoler des idioties. C'est evident que
deux personnes peuvent parler dans la langue de leur choix. L'usage
exclusif de la langue, tel que je l'ai indique dans les explications que tu
as coupe, s'applique a l'education, a la langue de travail et aux services
offerts par le canton. Les services en francais, en allemand et en italien
sont garanties pour les services offerts par le federal. Le romanche est
aussi garantie dans le canton des Grisons.
> So what is the penalty if some German speaking
> Swiss in a French Canton puts up a sign in German
> in front of his Bavarian style Beer Garden;
> is he castrated on the spot.
>
Tel que je te l'ai indique dans la partie du texte que tu as coupe, je ne
suis pas en mesure de te dire si la loi s'applique a l'affichage. MOI,
quand je ne sais pas quelque chose, je ne dis pas n'importe quoi. Tout ce
que je peux dire, c'est qu'en pratique, l'affichage est unilingue dans les
cantons unilingue.
> Do the Swiss have 'Language Police' to enforce
> what YOU say are their laws?
Je ne sais pas, et je n'ai pas l'intention de verifier: De toute facon,
meme si je verifiais, tu ne me croirais pas si je te disais qu'ils en ont
une.
>
> You have been brain washed so much you are brain
> dead. <he said, somewhat irritated>
>
Je te cite des references et des faits et c'est tout ce que tu reussis a
repondre. Pas fort entre les oreilles.
> :>> Produce the Belgian and Swiss laws
> :>> that "command" the behaviour you report above
> :>> for language of work. You will be unable to,
> :>> in exactly the same way, and for the same
> :>> reason that you cannot do so for sign laws.
> :>> The reason is that such a law would be an
> :>> abuse of the human rights of individuals.
> :>
> :>Loi sur l'utilisation du flamand et du francais en Belgique: Atlas de
la
> :>langue francaise publie chez Borduas, Paris 1995 page 55
> :>
> :>Loi sur l'utilisation des langues dans les cantons Suisse: Atlas de la
> :>langue francaise publie chez Borduas, Paris 1995 page 61.
> :>
> :>Dans les lois Belges et Suisse, on parle d'USAGE EXCLUSIF DE LA LANGUE.
>
> *** So who must use the exclusive language exclusively ?
> You are confused. The law describes and limits
> an 'entitlement' of the public to service in the
> local majority language. The law acts only on the
> actions of civil service. It says the public must be served
> by the civil service in the local majority language.
>
Tu extrapole ce que tu veux entendre, tu ne sais pas et tu dis n'importe
quoi. Ce n'est pas moi qui est confus, c'est toi. Alors je vais te repeter
une derniere fois:L'usage exclusif de la langue, tel que je l'ai indique
dans les explications que tu as coupe, s'applique a l'education, a la
langue de travail et aux services offerts par le canton. Si ce n'est pas
clair, c'est peut-etre que tu ne comprends pas bien le francais.
>
> The Swiss and Belgian law does not limit the free
> expression of Swiss or Belgian minorities. They are
> free:
> to speak to each other,
> to associate into companies that work in,
Ah oui, comme au Quebec.
> to put up signs in,
> any damn language they chose to.
>
Voir remarques precedentes.
> If some local shit head official decided otherwise
> he would be putting himself in personal danger from
> the people he was screwing with.
>
> *** You are deceiving yourself or lying to
> deceive others. There is no
> language law anywhere that intrudes into
> the human right to free expression and
> free association to the extent Quebec's
> law does. Why do you think it was condemned
> by the UN ?
>
> Wes
Ca ne me derange pas que tu ne me crois pas. Ce que je peux te dire c'est
de lire, de t'informer, de voyager un peu. Cela agrandira tes horizons et
tu sera peut-etre un peu moins borne et ignare.
C'est la derniere fois que je reponds a un de tes messages, je n'ai pas de
temps a perdre avec quelqu'un comme toi. J'aurais bien aime t'envoyer chier
mais c'est impossible, tu es bouche par les deux bouts.
Christian
Christian Lemay
Doug McLeod <cru...@Pacificcoast.net> a écrit dans l'article
<333FCC...@Pacificcoast.net>...
> Christian Lemay wrote:
>
> >
> > :>> I'm sure since Belgum and Switzerland are
> > :>> democracies with some sense of human rights,
> > :>> that their language laws concern
> > :>> efficient delivery of Gov. Services,
> > :>> and do not fuck about with language use
> > :>> by priviate enterprise or individuals
> > :>> (sign laws and such human-rights abusive trash
> > :>> that Quebec secessionists are temporarily fond of; I mean).
>
> > >*** Fine. In Quebec the language of work and of
> > > gov. services should be according to where
> > > you live in Quebec. English in English areas
> > > (eg Montreal) French in French areas (eg Three Rivers).
> >
>
> > >*** In all that you saw above you do not say
> > > what the local laws are. What you say is true
> > > by 'observation' but what in fact does the
> > > 'legislation' say ??
>
> There are no laws in Belgium there is only convention.
Faux, les premieres lois linguistiques belges datent de 1932. Ces lois ont
ete modifies en 1962, 1963 et 1966, version qui sont encore en vigueur
aujourd'hui. Il est certain que ces lois sont tres differentes de celles du
Quebec, puisque les restrictions linguistiques sont basees sur des lieux
plutot que sur des criteres individuels mais les resultats sont les memes.
> Only in Canada have we tried to force feed culture and language and
rasie one
> above all others when we are a country made up of a great variety.
> The UN has told Quebec that bill 101 is in violation of human
> rights standards to which Canada is a signatory nation. In comparison,
> Canadians in general have never objected to francophones using thier
> mother tongue.
never est un bien grand mot, tu devrais lire l'histoire du Canada
> They have simply required that when talking to the rest
> of the contry it makes far more sense to use a language that all
> immigrants Scots, Germans, Chinese, Ukrainian etc have adapted to for
> common useage.
>
C'est exactement ce que les quebecois francophones ont demandes durant des
annees, mais il y en avait qui ne voulait pas comprendre qu'au Quebec, la
majorite est francophone. La loi n'est la que pour le faire comprendre a
ceux qui ont des difficultes de comprehension. Toutefois, je ne dirais pas
que cette loi est parfaite.
> > > Produce the Belgian and Swiss laws
> > > that "command" the behaviour you report above
> > > for language of work. You will be unable to,
> > > in exactly the same way, and for the same
> > > reason that you cannot do so for sign laws.
> > > The reason is that such a law would be an
> > > abuse of the human rights of individuals.
> Like telling children of immigrants that they are not allowed to
> use their mother tongues in school hallways or school yards?? And most
> people thought the _Master Race_ was a Nazi concept! Can you imagine the
> same thing being used on francophones??
Mais mon cher monsieur, on se fait dire presque journalierement de parler
anglais, et nous ne sommes pas des immigrants. Je n'ai donc pas de
difficulte a l'imaginer.
> > :>> The Canadian approach to language of gov. service
> > :>> delivery in a locality "where numbers warrant"
> > :>> is simply a gentler version of the same thing.
>
> I disagree. My opinion is that the "where numbers warrant" is a
> cop out by politicians that refuse to set standards and deal with a
> problem, istead letting it fester forever. In B.C. for instance with
> less than a 1% francophone population, (about 10.8% chinese) there are
> those who say "the numbers warrant" franco services.
> I greatly enjoy the joie de vivre, people and culture, of old
> Montreal (and Cresent street) and love the architechture of old Quebec.
> There can be no question that the Francophones and the french language is
> a critical and integral part of that section of Canada nor shuold there
> be any doubt anyone's mind that just as the person from British Columbia
> that wants to work in Chicoutimi is going to have to learn French, so to
> is the person that wants to work outside the limited scope of the
> Quebecquois culture going to have to learn english.
> The problem I have is that the government of this country uses a
> piece of legislation based on the demographics of one section of this
> country a century ago to drive this country into conflict and the 21
> Century. Such ignorance, lack of foresight and inability to consider the
> way the country grew and opened up higlights the fact that the current
> gruop should be sterilized in case such stupidity is hereditary.
>
La, je suis en accord avec toi.
Christian Lemay