Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[Acajack]

Pro-French measures are clearly defensive, whereas opposition to them (even if craftily framed as the opposite) can't be anything but offensive given where we are at.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Pro-French measures are clearly defensive, whereas opposition to them (even if craftily framed as the opposite) can't be anything but offensive given where we are at.

Interesting.

From a certain point of view, the Russian invasion of Ukraine can be seen as a "defensive" action too.

Russia's defence has always been based on physical distance from the rest of Europe, because army movements on the northern European plain has always been so damned easy. It was only distance (and the Russian winter) that defeated Napoleon and Hitler. Expansive borders were always important to the Russian psyche for that reason.

After the fall of the Soviet Union however, NATO expanded right up to the Russian frontier in places like the Baltics, and Ukraine was threatening the same. Since the Russians resisted European integration, this NATO expansion was considered an existential threat for them. They decided to act "defensively" by invading Ukraine so they could re-establish their natural order.

It can be quite easy to rationalize aggressive behaviour as being purely defensive. The Russians are doing this in Ukraine. Bill 96 is doing this in Quebec..........

[Binour]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

The Russians are doing this in Ukraine. Bill 96 is doing this in Quebec..........

Ce qui est exagéré est insignifiant.
You are making a fool of yourself.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Binour

Ce qui est exagéré est insignifiant.
You are making a fool of yourself.

Not really. Bill 96 is clearly not on the same level as the obliteration of Mariupol, but the rationale is the same.

The easiest way to defend the status of French in Quebec is to effectively extinguish the English community in the province. C'est le meme chose, n'est pas?

I am speaking from my personal experience in the more rural areas of Quebec, since this is where my sister lived. I realize that the anglophone population in Montreal is reasonably well established, but, in my experience, the anglophone population in the rest of the province is in rapid and terminal decline. The CAQ seems to be in a rush to expedite the decline and the extirpation of the English language in almost every corner of Quebec.

There is no place in New Brunswick where the Acadian population is in rapid or terminal decline. No place at all. I would just like to think the remaining anglophone pockets in Quebec might have some similar consideration.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Interesting.

From a certain point of view, the Russian invasion of Ukraine can be seen as a "defensive" action too.

No. Not at all. As in, not even in the same universe.

The Russians agreed to broadly recognized international borders with Ukraine. Each state was given autonomy in its affairs, with the agreement that they would respect their borders. This was done in exchange for Ukraine surrendering the Soviets' nuclear arsenal leftovers. The invasion was a flagrant violation of national sovereignty.

In no way, shape, or form is the Russian invasion similar to Bill 96. None. Bill 96 is exclusively a Quebec matter, as Quebec retains a large degree of autonomy with respect to the French language within its borders, as agreed to within the federation of Canada. Now, should a Quebec-flagged tank roll into Campbellton, maybe the analogy holds.

Otherwise, balderdash.

[MonctonRad]

My point is simply that aggressive actions can be framed as being a defensive response. Nothing more or nothing less. My example may have been poorly chosen.

If you are looking for a more domestic analogy, how about the expulsion of the Acadians from Nova Scotia.

The expulsion of the Acadians in 1755 was ordered by Governor Charles Lawrence of NS because the Acadians refused to declare an oath of loyalty to the crown at the onset of the Seven Years War. Tens of thousands of Acadians were displaced from their homes, and thousands died in transit to their destinations. This was a despicable act that rightfully should be condemned but, from a certain point of view, could be argued as being justifiable (at the time) as the Acadians could not be trusted because they would not declare loyalty. In addition, there had been a number of armed conflicts between the Acadians (and their Micmac allies) and the British colonial authorities in the preceding 40 years (most recently Father LeLoutre's War), and this led to the colonial authorities in NS feeling threatened.

Governor Lawrence decided that in order to defend the colony he had to act aggressively by expelling the Acadian population of Nova Scotia (including thousands of innocent people who just wanted to live their lives in peace). He had a narrow window of opportunity in that a British and American expeditionary force was in the Bay of Fundy region because of the recent capture of Fort Beauséjour, so he decided to order the deportation using these troops and ships to carry out the deed.

Are the remaining anglophones in Quebec being actively displaced from their homes, and transported under armed guard to the Ontario border? Of course not. But, the provisions of Bill 96 effectively amount to the same thing. The anglophones are being told to assimilate or else. Their community is no longer to be supported by the provincial government and, if they want to continue to be anglophone, they must move. The only exception is Montreal, where there might (grudgingly) be some need to allow a rump anglophone community to exist in order to allow interaction with the rest of Canada and (more importantly) the United States. Otherwise, the anglophones of Quebec are being told to fuck off.

Again, my experiences come from what is happening in rural Quebec, because my sister lived there for 40 years, and in my visits there, I could clearly see what was happening to the anglophone communities, especially in places where the community was formerly quite vigorous, like in the Estrie. My brother in law's congregations kept getting older and smaller over time, with churches getting consolidated, and then eventually even denominations getting consolidated (United Church and Anglicans worshipping together for example). It was demoralizing. It is always sad to see a community die, even if they are English speaking...........

[thewave46]

We balance the tension of preference of language for the individual versus the needs of the larger society to preserve itself.

At the end of the day, Quebec is a French-speaking society. Its government takes an activist approach to enforcing that, because if it didn't, it would likely end up an English-speaking one. It has been taking an activist approach for nearly 50 years, so not a soul can claim that this is a completely unforeseen thing.

I have limited sympathy for those who refuse to yield to the majority in this particular case. In the same sense I would have limited sympathy for those who choose Ontario as a province of residence, yet insist on operating completely in Swahili. Ontario just has the luxury of overwhelming language inertia in its favour, so it doesn't need activist government to jump in. The concept of not operating in the English language in much of Ontario means that one essentially is ostracizing themselves.

Will Quebec ever be a completely French-speaking society, a la France? Probably not, given that it must interface with Anglophones on its borders. Do I think Bill 96 really changes anything? No, I view it more as a political optics play, mostly. I do defend the Government of Quebec's right to do this, however.

While we are relatively laissez-faire about a lot of things in this country, societies have the right to ask some things of their members. This is one of them.

[MonctonRad]

This article shows several areas where Bill 96 might be challenged, even with the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause.

https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/three-things-most-likely-to-be-legally-challenged-in-bill-96-1.5922027

1) - it denies anglophones equal access to the justice system because it demands that official French translations accompany any legal documents submitted in English, at personal expense.

“The thing that's most literally unconstitutional is the rule that you have to accompany an English procedure by a French translation,” he said.

“In other words, you put a price -- at your expense,” on using the justice system, he says.

“It's like saying you have freedom of expression, but you have to pay the government $20 every time you use it.”

Anglophones therefore will not have equal access to justice under the law. This is a denial of a fundamental human right.

2) - Quebec's language watchdog will be able to search lawyers’ and notaries’ offices (and physician's offices) without notice, and without warrant.

The ability to conduct privileged conversations with your doctor or your lawyer (especially your lawyer) is a fundamental human right. This is necessary to allow your lawyer to be able to mount an effective legal defence on your behalf. How will he be able to do this if there is always a risk that the government could ransack his office to see what he has been up to.

The OQLF is “given bigger power… than the police has in investigating murders,” he said, and greater powers than they would get under the Emergency Measures Act.

“Obviously, speaking English isn’t worse than murder,” he said, but in a couple of particular cases, a court may agree quickly that the law has overstepped.

And then there is this:

“I don't think they can even allow them to search doctors’ files,” though that’s a question that’s been left more legally open-ended in Canada -- it may be time for a new judgment on the matter, Grey said.

In the health system, of course, “there are very serious penalties” for violating patient privacy, he said, “if you work at a hospital, for instance, and you look into somebody's file you have no business looking at for non-medical reasons.”

Is patient confidentiality and privacy less important for anglophones than for francophones? Enquiring minds would like to know.

3) - The bill creates a long-term division between ‘historical’ and ‘other’ English-speakers

The idea of permanently separating two groups into this kind of two-tier system for a variety of daily purposes -- not just in terms of who qualifies for English education -- is new and calls for a legal challenge, he said.

Under the bill, new immigrants to Quebec would only be allowed to use English in all sorts of capacities for six months, after which they'd be required to use French, for example.

But "historic" English-speakers -- those with grandfathered rights to attend school in English -- wouldn't be subject to the same provisions, it appears. It's unclear so far how the system will work in reality.

In Canadian history, this kind of grouping-by-law is almost unheard-of, Grey said. There have sometimes been certain jobs reserved only for citizens, but that idea was “invalidated to a large extent under the Charter,” he said.

The only other example is Indian status, which has its own long roots.

“But on the whole, our tradition is not to create groups, distinct groups, based on heredity,” Grey said.

He added that “normal democratic countries don't categorize populations.”

[lio45]

Canada isn’t anywhere close to “a normal democratic country” then. We’re not about to turn FNs into regular, taxpaying Canadians.

And given that unavoidable elephant in the room, the concept of grandfathered linguistic rights for some but not for others is certainly not a major issue.

[lio45]

Someone should introduce Julius Grey to the Indian Act; that would definitely keep him out of our hair until he passes of old age

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

This article shows several areas where Bill 96 might be challenged, even with the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause.

https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/three-things-most-likely-to-be-legally-challenged-in-bill-96-1.5922027

1) - it denies anglophones equal access to the justice system because it demands that official French translations accompany any legal documents submitted in English, at personal expense.



Anglophones therefore will not have equal access to justice under the law. This is a denial of a fundamental human right.

2) - Quebec's language watchdog will be able to search lawyers’ and notaries’ offices (and physician's offices) without notice, and without warrant.

The ability to conduct privileged conversations with your doctor or your lawyer (especially your lawyer) is a fundamental human right. This is necessary to allow your lawyer to be able to mount an effective legal defence on your behalf. How will he be able to do this if there is always a risk that the government could ransack his office to see what he has been up to.



And then there is this:



Is patient confidentiality and privacy less important for anglophones than for francophones? Enquiring minds would like to know.

3) - The bill creates a long-term division between ‘historical’ and ‘other’ English-speakers

Pretty sure this will never, ever happen to an anglophone victim in Quebec, even with Bill 96.

Francophone woman in northern Ontario who was victim of sexual assault sees charges against aggressor dropped because court can't find interpreter

https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1754650/services-francais-sault-sainte-marie-jordan-justice

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by thewave46

We balance the tension of preference of language for the individual versus the needs of the larger society to preserve itself.

At the end of the day, Quebec is a French-speaking society. Its government takes an activist approach to enforcing that, because if it didn't, it would likely end up an English-speaking one. It has been taking an activist approach for nearly 50 years, so not a soul can claim that this is a completely unforeseen thing.

I have limited sympathy for those who refuse to yield to the majority in this particular case. In the same sense I would have limited sympathy for those who choose Ontario as a province of residence, yet insist on operating completely in Swahili. Ontario just has the luxury of overwhelming language inertia in its favour, so it doesn't need activist government to jump in. The concept of not operating in the English language in much of Ontario means that one essentially is ostracizing themselves.

Will Quebec ever be a completely French-speaking society, a la France? Probably not, given that it must interface with Anglophones on its borders. Do I think Bill 96 really changes anything? No, I view it more as a political optics play, mostly. I do defend the Government of Quebec's right to do this, however.

While we are relatively laissez-faire about a lot of things in this country, societies have the right to ask some things of their members. This is one of them.

Sensible post.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Are the remaining anglophones in Quebec being actively displaced from their homes, and transported under armed guard to the Ontario border? Of course not. But, the provisions of Bill 96 effectively amount to the same thing. The anglophones are being told to assimilate or else. Their community is no longer to be supported by the provincial government and, if they want to continue to be anglophone, they must move. The only exception is Montreal, where there might (grudgingly) be some need to allow a rump anglophone community to exist in order to allow interaction with the rest of Canada and (more importantly) the United States. Otherwise, the anglophones of Quebec are being told to fuck off.

This is almost all false.

They are not being told to assimilate or else. It would be accurate to say that their historic ability to impose their language on francophones has been scaled back since 1977, and since the perception is that the pendulum may have slowly begun to swing back to English once again, Bill 96 is seen as a correction.

If you think that living your life 100% in English (and having everyone you encounter every day accommodate that), then Quebec is probably not the right place for you.

There is always the other option which is to use English when you can in your life, and also accept that living in a French-speaking society you are probably going to have to use it to some degree every day.

This is basically how my parents balanced their native French and societal English in their lives for over 75 years as francophones living outside Quebec, and probably 800,000 or of Canada's francophones in the ROC do this every single day.

In fairness some Quebec anglophones live this "balance" too, but obviously a decent chunk of the community (and some of their friends in the ROC) think it's beneath them!

[Acajack]

I suppose given the way these discussions usually go, I should have had "Quebec as 2022 Russia (the bad guy)" on my bingo card... but I didn't.

I've been trying to put together a post on this, but do I really need to?

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Sensible post.

It is a sensible post (except for the comparison of anglo-Quebecers who's ancestors may have been living in la Belle Province for as long as 240 years to Swahili speaking immigrants to Ontario).

I do not deny that Quebec should be a francophone province, and that the normal language of communication in Quebec should be French. This seems like the right thing to do. What I would like to see is an acknowledgement that there are certain areas in the province where there has historically been a strong anglophone presence and that the rights of anglophones in these areas of the province be respected. There should be more tolerance of English in the Pontiac region, in west island Montreal, the Chateauguay, in pockets of the Estrie and in the Lower North Shore. There is still some vigour to the English speaking community in these areas.

I don't see how some tolerance in these few areas constitutes an existential threat to the overwhelming francophone majority in the province.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

It is a sensible post (except for the comparison of anglo-Quebecers who's ancestors may have been living in la Belle Province for as long as 240 years to Swahili speaking immigrants to Ontario).

I do not deny that Quebec should be a francophone province, and that the normal language of communication in Quebec should be French. This seems like the right thing to do. What I would like to see is an acknowledgement that there are certain areas in the province where there has historically been a strong anglophone presence and that the rights of anglophones in these areas of the province be respected. There should be more tolerance of English in the Pontiac region, in west island Montreal, the Chateauguay, in pockets of the Estrie and in the Lower North Shore. There is still some vigour to the English speaking community in these areas.

I don't see how some tolerance in these few areas constitutes an existential threat to the overwhelming francophone majority in the province.

All of those areas have substantial English-language service levels from the province.

But, unlike say the Caraquet-Tracadie-Shippagan area of New Brunswick, which are almost all francophone, these areas of Quebec aren't "100% minority", and have large francophone (generally locally larger than the anglo group) populations too - who also have rights.

[lio45]

For the record, yesterday, I had to switch to English no less than twice in the same day, due to the inability of my (non-immigrant) interlocutors to reply anything other than “sorry, I don’t speak French”. (In Sherbrooke, in 2022.)

English is far from threatened.

There’s the “most rural areas are losing people” angle too, which is unrelated to language.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

For the record, yesterday, I had to switch to English no less than twice in the same day, due to the inability of my (non-immigrant) interlocutors to reply anything other than “sorry, I don’t speak French”. (In Sherbrooke, in 2022.)
.

More or less common than 5-10-15 years ago?

Because Bill 96 is probably related to the answer.

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I seriously doubt that the English conquerors left the Catholic Church in place purposefully in order to oppress the habitant farmers of Quebec.

The Church knew the stakes: control the French population or lose your status as a legal religion. They helped keep the population docile and unassuming. Take the time during the French Revolution; the Church told the people not to revolt and to obey the authorities and the monarchy. Of course, there was also the fact that the French Revolution wasn't too friendly on the clergy, but the Church knew that if they encourage people to revolt (or even if they just didn't discourage to do so), they might lose their accepted religion status and eventually their Canadien flock.

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

It is a sensible post (except for the comparison of anglo-Quebecers who's ancestors may have been living in la Belle Province for as long as 240 years to Swahili speaking immigrants to Ontario).

I do not deny that Quebec should be a francophone province, and that the normal language of communication in Quebec should be French. This seems like the right thing to do. What I would like to see is an acknowledgement that there are certain areas in the province where there has historically been a strong anglophone presence and that the rights of anglophones in these areas of the province be respected. There should be more tolerance of English in the Pontiac region, in west island Montreal, the Chateauguay, in pockets of the Estrie and in the Lower North Shore. There is still some vigour to the English speaking community in these areas.

I don't see how some tolerance in these few areas constitutes an existential threat to the overwhelming francophone majority in the province.

The problem isn't the actual Anglophone population (well, at least most of them actually, a few are really bothered by the precedence of French), the problem is that a big part of immigrants chose to integrate in English instead of French. If you want to immigrate in North America and live in English, there is the rest of the Canada and USA to do so, if you want to live in French, welcome to Québec (and some parts of New Brunswick). The goal of the language laws is integrate immigrants in French, which is less appealing if it is so easy to integrate in English (this is why the rights of the traditional Anglophone population are better protected than new immigrants). The new law might have parts that are misguided but the goal is to make integration into French society easier that into English society, and this new law will help in that way (even if imperfectly). If there are other measures or better ones, I would love to hear them.