Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00
Doubtful. MPs with accents get elected all the time. Some get cabinet posts. Especially provincially. I think there's even more tolerance among anglophones for Francophone leaders who may have worse English and heavy accents. As long as they can be understood, most people are just fine.
I think folks like yourself are projecting your own linguistic concerns and imagining that Anglophones think the same way. But language isn't some culture war touchpoint for Anglophones, the way it is for Francophones.
And there's an obvious cultural double standard. I guarantee you that most Anglophones would be far more tolerant of a Quebecer with an accent and worse grammar than they would say a newly naturalized Indo-Canadian. Who do you think would fare better with the average anglophone voter Chretien/Dion group or a guy that sounds like Apu from the Simpsons? I would put my money on the former. Even in the 905!
|
Speaking from the perspective of an Allophone, this whole spiel about Quebecois setting up impossibly high linguistic standards is completely overblown, and seems to me to be a way for Anglophones to rationalize and eliminate French as a language requirement for the role of Prime Minister.
Karina Gould's Ontario-immersion level French would have easily passed muster and Quebecers weren't critcal of her French fluency after the Liberal leadership debate, and it's no better than Chretien's English. Quebecers don't even expect the fluency of Frank Baylis.
Threaded Mode