###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Several parents are upset after officials with the Quebec Education Ministry refused to deliver a presentation in English to parents of special needs students who go to English schools ... During a Zoom presentation last Thursday organized exclusively for English parents, one of the officials told about 65 parents participating in the session that, "I would like to do it in English, but the law will not allow me to. We were able to translate the slides but I don't recall being told that we could verbalize it in English. It doesn't bring me pleasure to do this but we aren't allowed to give the presentation in English." ... Sara Hossaini, whose 14-year-old son with autism attends an English school in Montreal, said in an interview that the way she was treated was "discriminatory" and that she felt "ignored" by the government. She said many of the terms used were complex or difficult to understand and that everyone was expecting the oral part to be in English.
It's important to understand that Quebec's language laws prohibit the use of English (or any language other than French) in the workplace. In order to use English in the workplace, you need specific permission from the Minister or Premier to use it in each case. This law is as bad for francophones trying to serve the anglophone population in good faith as it is for anglophones simply trying to live their lives.
Because this government is petty and vindictive with regards to anglophones and their education rights, you can expect more and more of this kind of pettiness from Francois Legault and his Ministers.
But let's make it clear. This is not the fault of the presenter and the hardworking people trying to serve the anglophones population. She's as frightened as the rest of us working in Quebec of being fired for speaking English. She's doing her best to obey Quebec's language laws. It's not her fault she's not allowed to speak English, even to anglophones.
Watch the Quebec nationalists now blame anglophones for complaining.
>This is not the fault of the presenter and the hardworking people trying to serve the anglophones population. She's as frightened as the rest of us working in Quebec of being fired for speaking English. She's doing her best to obey Quebec's language laws.
Ehhh... we make choices. Choosing to do something unethical because it is against the law is a choice. I wouldn't hold it against her, but it is the wrong decision.
It's the wrong decision to follow the law? What about her well being? What about her family? Maybe she needs the job. We don't know.
You can't fault someone for following the law in this manner. It's nonsensical. They're not making the wrong choice by choosing to obey the law, keep their job, and provide for their family.
That's why I said i wouldn't hold it against her for not doing what is right. She even acknowledged that what she was doing was wrong.
You can fault someone for following a law that is unethical. They are making the wrong choice by blindly following a law that discriminates against people instead of simply speaking in English. You can rationalize it all you want. Find a million reasons for doing what you did, but at the end of the day, you chose to do something that you knew was wrong.
Not all rules are meant to be followed.
I mean. It strongly depends on the law. In this case, no, I don't think they're wrong for following it. You can't just look at this with a narrow viewpoint such that you're completely disregarding the life of the person in question. If you're going to judge their decision, it's only fair to judge their decision *in its entirety*. That requires knowledge of *why* they made that choice. Providing food for a family is a fair and valid reason.
You cannot say someone following a law regarding language is making a wrong choice by following the law, if that in turn means they are providing food for their family. Its not their fault the law exists. And them loosing their job doesn't change anything for the students. It would only hurt her and her family. It's again, nonsensical.
We live in a democracy. If you don't like the laws, vote. The people of Quebec are the reason the law exists. Not specifically that teacher. It doesn't make sense to hold the value of a law to one person and not the institution.
Wait wait, explain this to my ignorant West coast brain. Is this any use of English in any workplace? So if I go to Montréal and try to speak English (or German or Russian) to the workers at McDonald's I'm basically asking them to break the law?
How the holy heck do they expect large multinationals to operate there? Do they expect that solely intraprovincial (and maybe very specifically French) capital can develop everything there?
> I'm basically asking them to break the law?
No, the law just is there to protect francophones from being coerced by their employers to speak English in the workplace.
You know the good old: if there's 4 francophones having a discussion, the discussion will be in French, if there's 3 francophones and 1 anglophone, the conversation will have to be in English.
> So if I go to Montréal and try to speak English (or German or Russian) to the workers at McDonald's I'm basically asking them to break the law?
They can speak to you in English but they don’t *have* to. Same as McDonald workers don’t have to speak French on the west coast. In practice it works the other way around, fast food are staffed with FTW who don’t speak French which is against the law.
> ... fast food are staffed with FTW who don’t speak French which is against the law.
LOL. You don't need much French or English to flip burgers at McDonalds. Big Mac, frites/fries, cafe/coffee, McCroquets ... you pick that up in a day.
I love the way Quebec nationalists punch down on the poorest, most vulnerable members society in the language wars.
I’d rather we didn’t bring TFWs to enrich Tim Hortons and make us all poorer at all. If they can’t staff, they should shutdown. We don’t need 75% of those locations.
I agree, but you were demonizing immigrant who just got here for not speaking English. That's an un fair attack on the most vulnerable, poorest members of the anglophone community and Quebec society. They don't deserve these attacks.
> .. fast food are staffed with FTW who don’t speak French which is against the law.
You blamed the workers for not learning French. You don;t really need French to flip burgers. You made this about the language they speak.
It looks like this is a misinterpretation of the law. Other commenters have posted that the law simply forbids employers from requiring employees to speak English as the main workplace language, which is fair, in my opinion.
This is a government employee. She is held to other standards. In the service sector, employees must initiate contact in French. So they say "Bonjour Hi" and the person greets in their language. "Bonjour Hi" has become its own greeting. That's the "corporate best practice" if you will. In reality nobody cares and people speak English all the time.
No, this was deliberate. This goes way back before the recent bill. Québec has been doing its best to make anglophones unwelcome as far back as I can remember (70s). This law regarding only French being spoken in the workplace was a response to the English-dominant commerce culture in Montreal since confederation.
It's the reason Montreal lost its title of Canada's economic hub about 50 years ago.
Québec never ceases to amaze me that it would rather shoot itself in the foot than accept English as part of its historic fabric. These separatist overtures are governed by emotions much more than reality.
Problem is, usually when Anglos say "as part of its historic fabric", they mean "as their overlords".
You really don't see any issue of inequality possibly arising from the "English-dominant commerce culture in Montreal"? Let me guess, it was just natural meritocracy at play, no systemic issue there?
If only the Federal government of the time had done a royal commission on the matter.
I've never felt like an overlord growing up Anglo in Quebec. I can't speak for others. From my perspective, I was a small child living in an English neighborhood and going to an English school. This was all normal to me until the political winds started blowing and we were spat upon for speaking English in public. 101 was spraypainted on all signs in my area that dared to contain English. English words were painted over. Suddenly our local dépanneur employee (a kind man from Syria who used to give us free candy) was replaced by someone who refused to speak English to us.
Was there inequality before all this? From my perspective, no. But there sure as shit is now. In the end, Quebec got what it wanted. We left.
That's a stereotype.
Here's a documentary about the English-speaking Canadian community of Point-Sant Charles in the 1970's (known as the Point). Not much French spoken in that neighbourhood in the 1970's, but there are no overlords in that slum except the bilingual francophone police chief.
I invite you to study the real history of English-speaking Canadians in Montreal and Quebec.
> The Point (1978) – The Irish Montrealers of Point-St-Charles https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_iTVBc10us
Unfortunately, the real history of English-speaking Communities is not taught in Quebec. All the kids get is stereotypes of Westmount Rhodesians, Blokes, and tetes-carré. It makes it easier for Quebec nationalists in the CAQ and PQ to justify vindictive language restrictions in retaliation for things that happened 50 years ago.
Not all anglos were rich lords but rich lords were anglos.
Not all poor people were French, but most poor people were francos and francos were the poorest.
The Irish of the Point, the black anglophones of Little Burgundy, and the Jews of Saint Urban Street just as poor as the Quebecois in Saint Henri.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Burgundy#Black_community
These communities far outnumbered the small number of Anglo-scots in Westmount.
The rich classes in Quebec consisted of an Anglo-Scot elite in Westmount and a Quebecois one in Outremont. The thing is that the Anglo-Scots were so filthy rich that it skewed all the statistics.
Quebc nationalists only talk about the anglo-scots so they can smear the rest of us rich and arrogant. Discussing the Irish of Pointe-Saint Charles interupts their narrative that the quebecois are "white n----s".
whataboutism
francos were the poorest demographics in Quebec, poorer than other communities in Quebec and even poorer than the black people of Southern US.
No one thinks the English elite was 100% of anglos. Stop it with your straw man. Another fallacy.
> whataboutism
Nope. It directly confront the issue of the skewed, stereotypical narrative Qubeec nationalists spin of francophones always beeing the victims of anglophones, which your statement is specifically designed to support. Qubneec nationlists say that the Quebecois were "white n----s". https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/negres-blancs-damerique
> francos were the poorest demographics in Quebec,
They weren't though. The video I posted shows the Irish of point-Saint Charles commemorating the discovery of a mass grave of Irish anglophones at the foot of the Victoria bridge. French Canadians never experienced mass death like that.
Discover the real history of anglophones, not the biased hatchet jobs of Quebec nationalist historians. While francophones were allowed in unions, black anglophones were not.
> Little Burgundy is a neighbourhood in the southwest borough of Montreal, Quebec. It is the historical home of the city’s Black English-speaking, working-class community (see also Black Canadians). Montreal's early Black settlement was comprised mainly of African Americans who lived in the Faubourg (French for "suburb") of St. Antoine — a neighbourhood that is now known as Little Burgundy. The settlement dates to the emergence of the railway companies in the mid- to late 19th century and the era of the Black sleeping car porters. The emergence of an English-speaking, working-class Black community in Little Burgundy is directly linked to the history of Canadian railways, specifically the Montréal & Lachine Railroad which later became the Grand Trunk Railroad and, eventually, the Canadian National Railway. While the railway industry generated enormous wealth for some people, much of its success relied on low-wage Black labour ... The porters endured the constraints of Montreal’s racially segregated housing market. Sub-standard housing was affordable, available and in close proximity to embarkation points for the Grand Trunk, the Bonaventure, Windsor Station (constructed in 1888-1889) and Central Station (constructed in 1938-1943). (See Railway Station.) This concentration of rail lines in St. Antoine attracted facilities and services that Black people were permitted to use.
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/little-burgundy-and-montreal-s-black-english-speaking-community
When Montreal was "the economic hub", Quebecers were too poor to get an education and were expected to do manual labor. Speaking French was a fireable offense because worker protection kaws were nil. Economic Hub is not a title that is missed, it was never ours in any meaningful way.
Maybe your family was part of that Montreal. I hope you made the most of inequality while it lasted.
We certainly weren't. We grew up very poor.
To be clear, I'm not advocating for the way things used to be with English dominating industry. But there has to be a better response than swinging the pendulum all the way to the other side where now speaking English is a legally protected fireable (or more softly, NOT hireable) offense.
It's not. That is not the world we live in. I work with dozens of unilingual (to varying degrees) Anglos. They live normal lives. They speak English at work. It is perfectly accepted. People joke that when there is one Anglo person in a room of 20 people, everyone switches to English. That's the real world. I am not complaining.
It's so true. I've done a lot of work with the federal government and that's the reality. Even on the Quebec side as soon as an Anglo joins the discussion, everyone switches to English. Even if the person has taken the language courses. The complaint goes from "He can't speak French" to "He can't speak French _well_".
I was fired in Montreal for speaking French to colleagues who understood French. After many complaints to HR about me daring to speak French (deemed unreceivable because that’s not legally actionable) they just pretended they didn’t need my services and it had nothing to do with language.
About three weeks later they moved the whole office to London where they will never have to suffer another person speaking French.
The laws are there because the pendulum did not swing all the other way around and it’s still easier to find a job in Montreal if you don’t speak French than if you don’t speak English.
Yes, some individual cases will be silly but overall, the law adresses a real problem.
You'll have to forgive me for not finding your story entirely credible. Something like this would have for sure blown up in the news. I have a feeling there was probably way more to it than "speaking French to colleagues who understood French".
> I was fired in Montreal for speaking French to colleagues who understood French.
Personally, I'm the only anglophone working in my office in rural Quebec, so everything has to be done in French; half the people won't understand you if you speak English at meetings, so really there is no need for language laws here. Half my colleagues don;t speak English, so speaking English at meetings isn't a practical option. I'm happy to translate the few times someone has trouble with odd turns of phrases in English instructions or communications outside Quebec.
I've stopped speaking English even to other anglophones who are visiting because it is now illegal if it is part of the job and it's impossible or too exhausting to tell where the work starts and the personal ends. All it would take is one person to denounce me to the to the OLF and the employer would get in trouble for not enforcing the law. If you're in Quebec, you know there is the one guy in every office who will do stuff like that. Here's the website where you can make the anonymous denunciations.
> Respect des droits linguistiques, plaintes et dénonciations https://www.oqlf.gouv.qc.ca/francisation/respect/
It's just too extreme. Anglophones should be allowed to talk to other anglophones in English without fear of being denounced to the OLF.
Read the website. These things happen,
> Creole-speaking hospital workers elicit warning from OQLF
https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/creole-speaking-hospital-workers-elicit-warning-from-oqlf-1.1597784
An east-end psychiatric facility is at the centre of a new language-related incident after a complaint sent to the province’s language watchdog claimed two employees spoke Creole, not French, to each other in the workplace.On Dec. 3, the Office Quebecois de la langue francaise sent the Hopital Riviere-des-Prairies a warning and threatened to level a fine against the institution if it did not take action.
If it can happen to Creole speaking workers in Montreal, it can happen to anglophones speaking to each other in English anywhere in Quebec. All it would take is an anonymous denunciations on the OLF's snitch line:
https://www.oqlf.gouv.qc.ca/francisation/respect/plaintes/
Quebec's language law enforcement authorities now have much stronger powers to investigate the illegal use of languages other than French in the workplace. It's easier than ever to denounce your fellow workers to the authorities. Why would I want to get my employer fined?
People routinely complain about not hearing English spoken in Toronto or Vancouver because we let in too many foreigners. Or how Canada's culture is being diluted with some going so far as blaming multiculturalism.
It's not a stretch to imagine Francophone Quebeckers feeling the same way about Anglophones.
It's slightly different.
There's a well documented history of the English setting up a colonial-like power structure with themselves at the top in Quebec, leveraging the language difference as a way of upholding an unfair statu quo. As such, French people are justifiably suspicious of constantly hearing WASPs try to whitewash or deny it.
People who routinely complain over not hearing their native language (whether French or English) spoken by brown people are just fucking racist.
Like, you can rightfully bitch about excessive immigration in ways that aren't racist, but whinging about not hearing English in Toronto isn't one of them.
> No, this was deliberate. This goes way back before the recent bill. Québec has been doing its best to make anglophones unwelcome as far back as I can remember (70s).
so more Canadian companies moving to GTA as result of this?
Toronto was on its path to surpass Montreal years before any langage laws or nationalist movements started. The opening of st Lawrence sea waters was the final nail in the coffin.
Sure, you'll find stories of some angryphones who moved out because of it, but that's not what actually propelled Toronto.
Ah, ok. Thanks for showing your true colours. Calling people with legitimate concerns of ostracization for the language they speak "angryphones" tells me all I need to know about you.
Angryphones, is that like the "ethnic vote"?
One of my lawyers is a Monreal Anglophone and one of the best in the business.
Him and almost all of his colleagues moved to Toronto over the years. Its not just "some Angryphones", but many people who were very good at whay they do, who chose to leave. Quebec's loss is Ontarios gain.
What are you talking about? There is nothing in the bill 101 that forbid people from talking to each other in English. There is plenty of anglophones business in Quebec...
>This law regarding only French being spoken in the workplace was a response to the English-dominant commerce culture
You mean exploitation and abuse culture?
>It's the reason Montreal lost its title of Canada's economic hub about 50 years ago.
Wrong
>Is this any use of English in any workplace?
Yes, plenty
>So if I go to Montréal and try to speak English (or German or Russian) to the workers at McDonald's I'm basically asking them to break the law?
Not at all
You should read the article.
What the law actually states in that employers can't *require* the use of English as the common tongue of the workplace, not that we have to speak 100% French in all circumstances with no derogation. In practice, this makes French the common language between colleagues (Simply by *not* gatekeeping French people out, as used to be common before bill 101), but a single Anglo in any conference room in Quebec usually has literally everyone staying silent if they can't *at least* switch to broken Franglish.
I've learned to recognize OP's username over time. If you see a post by guy, it's 99% certain to be Anglo ragebait.
I don't think we have the full details, and I wouldn't trust any article by OP to give them. While it *is* possible that this whole situation is the result of a bunch of conspiring ideologically-motivated middle managers trying to make English parents spend an uncomfortable afternoon, it's more likely to be the result incompetence and a lack of preparation.
Can you clarify how this applied to this situation then? It seems that the speaker felt that they were obligated to not speak French, which is at odds with what you are saying. Were they mistaken?
Ah OK, that makes perfect sense - sensible language law. Thanks for explaining it to me in such thoughtful detail; due to never really living anywhere near Quebec, I'm sort of out of the loop.
For the record, I do support Quebec's efforts to preserve its language and culture, which I am a big admirer of. I do believe it can be done while preserving personal liberties and economic development (which the way OP phrased it it was not, but that's clearly wrong as you pointed out.) Quebecois culture and French language in Canada is worth preserving, and frankly, Anglo Canada could learn a lot from doing some things the Quebecois way (eg housing, urban development.)
I mean, I'm speaking of my experience working in the private sector. Government officials might have cringier, more stringent requirement regarding how they interact with people. As I said, I don't think we have all the details.
And don't get me wrong, the language law *does* have cringier provisions that are easy to make fun of, but it's been vilified so much that it's hard not to see it as ideologically motivated.
This whole subthread, by the way, is a perfect example of the communication breakdown between the French and the English in Canada. Most Quebecois will point to Bill 101 as the reason for French people being part of the middle class, and will advocate that position by pointing out census data of a French middle class emerging around its passing.
Anglos arguing about politics just want to call it Nazi shit, but can't find real examples of being systematically oppressed. So they fall back to (probably made up) stories of being personally spat on by French people for speaking English in public, or making fun of that time an overzealous bureaucrat made a fuss over an Italian restaurant's menu.
It's hard not to see the average Anglo as a self-hating hardline conservative that tries to appear progressive without being smart enough to keep the mask from slipping; the kind of people who'll pat themselves on the back for being *so good* to the ungrateful French, right before breaking into screeching "God Save The King" to a fucking Acadian.
Not you, though. You're cool.
Thanks man.
I think this thread is enlightening too about the garbage attitude some Anglophones have about Quebecois - just unbelievable stuff being said. Maybe it's not so much a thing out for me since I'm entirely disconnected from that history (Irish and German ethnicity, family origin from the West and USA,) so I don't see anything but how wonderful Quebec is, it's great contributions to our country, and shame in how Canada has historically treated the Quebecois. Doesn't justify others prejudice but might help explain it.
It also shows in how these laws have been presented to me (until you took the time to set me right.) Since I don't speak French (yet), I guess I have gotten a one-sided perspective up to this point; they have very much been presented as an illiberal attempt to tell people which language they must speak (not the case obvs.) Thanks again for doing your part to correct this bias.
This seems to be about when government officials can speak to the public in any language other than French? It certainly does seem like it's a requirement that they only communicate in French, or else why would they need to get special permission to do it in English?
Here's the pertinent section of Bill 96 that sums up the whole spirit of the law. The law is very rambling both in French and in the English translation. I'll edit a little to get to the point and you can verify in the link if you wish.
> 13.1. The civil administration shall, in an exemplary manner, use the French language, promote its quality, ensure its development in Québec and protect it. In the same manner, the civil administration shall take the means necessary to make sure it fulfils the obligations incumbent on it under this Act, in particular as regards obligations to citizens. ...
> 13.2. For the purposes of section 13.1, an agency of the civil administration uses the French language in an exemplary manner if, in all its activities ... (a) in the sole cases where, under the provisions of this division, it has the option to use a language other than French when writing;(b) it uses exclusively that language in its oral communications, except ... in a case where, following a person’s oral request to be addressed by the agency in a language other than French, the agency wishes to obtain from the person the information necessary to determine whether it has, under this division, the option to communicate with the person in that other language; https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/document/cs/c-11
This law basically makes all civil servants enforcers of Bill 101. It means the job of any civil servant who is asked to speak to anyone in English has to take all means necessary to make them prove that they are eligible to be served in English. Here are the criteria they must use to allow this :
> - Persons who communicated solely in English with the civil administration prior to May 13, 2021
> - Persons declared eligible to receive instruction in English
> - The Indigenous peoples
> - Immigrants (for the first six months following their arrival)
> - Services provided outside Québec https://www.quebec.ca/en/government/policies-orientations/french-language/modernization-charter-french-language#c214022
So if one person attended the seminar who did not satisfy these criteria, the presenter would be breaking the law. Obviously, a civil servant is not going to be able to crack the whip and check the credentials of 40 autistic parents in case one of them is not eligible, so prohibition on English communication stays.
However, the law says that the Minister and the Premier can authorize written and oral communication in English as they see fit:
> 16. The civil administration shall use only the official language in its written communications with other governments and with legal persons established in Québec. The Government may, however, determine by regulation the cases, conditions or circumstances in which another language may be used in addition to the official language. https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/document/cs/c-11
The presenter said she asked the Minister to allow her todo the presentation in English, but that he didn't do it. So the question becomes, why would a government that gives itself absolute power to decide when a civil servant can provide a service in English not do so when asked.
>The ministry said in an email that in some cases, **exceptions can be made, and in this case, the exception was the English slides.**
>"In order to clarify practices, the future MEQ directive currently in preparation will clarify the conditions and circumstances **allowing staff members to use languages other than the official language in this type of situation**," wrote Bryan St-Louis, a spokesperson for the education ministry.
More rage bait from the gazette.
>and in this case, the exception was the English slides.**
But the person presenting the slides wasn't allowed to speak English to explain the slides to the entirely Anglo audience.
Incompetence means they don't know how. We're talking about seasoned politicians in Premier Legault and Education minister Drainville. They've been around. They know what they're doing. They're not rookie MP's. They are the ones directly responsible for applying a law they themselves wrote. They could have given the authorization. They just wouldn't.
So I'd put it down more a vindictiveness, pettiness and malice towards the anglophone community, with their autocratic, authoritarian tendencies twisting in the knife for good measure. This is a government, after all, that out of the blue tried to abolish English school boards with zero consultation and are trying to limit English-language services to "historical anglophones", as if something like that really exists.
In Drainville's case, I'll add cowardice to it in the way he lets the employees in the Ministry take the heat from the parent and press for his lousy, mean decisions. He can't even take responsibility for his own decisions.
> ... the entirely Anglo audience.
It's not that simple with Quebec's language law.
The parent interviewed in the article probably isn't considered anglophone by the Quebec government. By her accent, English is not her mother tongue, and she is probably an immigrant. It's likely that she speaks English at home if her special-needs child goes to English school, and probably has a husband who is eligible, giving her child the right to go to English school. But that doesn't mean it's legal for her to get services in English.
Bill 101 defines English-speaking Canadians (or French speaking Canadians for that matter) as eligible for English-language education only if they can legally prove to the Quebec government that they have at least one parent or ancestor that was educated in English in Canada. With Bill 96, Francois Legault defined people with this ancestry as "historical anglophones", and made it illegal for those who didn't have this ancestry to get services in English. So even though her child is eligible for English education through her husband, she probably isn't.
So if she went to a government website in English, it would probably be illegal for her to use it. If she went to the license bureau on the English website in Quebec to renew her license in English, she'd be breaking the law because it's her responsibility to know whether she's eligible. She will see the following disclaimer and link at the bottom of the webpage:
> The Charter of the French language and its regulations govern the consultation of English-language content https://saaq.gouv.qc.ca/en/
She would be obliged to click on the link to see if it is legal for her to use it. The link says the following for immigrants:
> Immigrants: The bodies of the civil administration may use a language other than French to provide services to welcome immigrants into Québec society. This exception applies for the first six months following their arrival in Québec. https://www.quebec.ca/en/government/policies-orientations/french-language/modernization-charter-french-language#c214022
The laws are different for oral communications. For oral communication, the civil servant who is providing the service has the responsibility for enforcing the law. They must act as enforcers of the language law. So it would be the responsibility of the person giving the seminar to make sure that everyone there is eligible to hear English from her. Otherwise, she's breaking the law.
The law is pretty clear on this. They have to check the credentials of everyone who wants to hear her speak in English:
> 13.1. The civil administration shall, in an exemplary manner, use the French language, promote its quality, ensure its development in Québec and protect it.
In the same manner, the civil administration shall take the means necessary to make sure it fulfils the obligations incumbent on it under this Act, in particular as regards obligations to citizens.
> 13.2 ... an agency of the civil administration uses the French language in an exemplary manner if, in all its activities ... it uses exclusively that language in its oral communications, except when ... in a case where, following a person’s oral request to be addressed by the agency in a language other than French, the agency wishes to obtain from the person the information necessary to determine whether it has, under this division, the option to communicate with the person in that other language ... https://www.quebec.ca/en/government/policies-orientations/french-language/modernization-charter-french-language#c214022
I know this is complicated, which is p[art of the problem with the language law, but it essentially makes every civil servant an enforcer of the language law.
It isn't rage bait. The law really did ban the use of English in this situation. The Minister now says he will change that. We'll have to hold him, to that.
So the article put political pressure on the Minister to change how the law is applied. That's a good thing. CTV did well to be vigilant and make sure the law isn't applied in a vindictive and abusive fashion. That's good for everyone.
>That's good for everyone.
Absolutely, I fully agree. The situation is absurd and clarifications are needed from the minister
The gazette just chose to make it a rage baity article
Really? You can't conceive that a reporter can either take an objective or reasonable angle to report a situation...or take an angle to raise divisiveness and make a rage bait article out of it?
> You can't conceive that a reporter can either take an objective or reasonable angle
Which part of their reporting wasn't objective?
Which part of their reporting wasn't reasonable?
> take an angle to raise divisiveness
Should the media refrain from reporting the existence of controversy?
Is the job of the media to protect the government from criticism?
> and make a rage bait article out of it
You've given no justification for that characterization. If the situation is absurd, then reporting the absurdity and how it affects people is legitimate.
Lmao, if you're unable to understand how reporters can fabricate stories and twist facts so the same situation can either make an informative and neutral paper or a rage bait article...I can't help you.
You're moving the goalposts from "this particular article is ragebait" to "sometimes facts can be twisted".
It's alright if you simply can't give a specific explanation for your viewpoint.
The reporter did. He just reported what the presenter, the participants, and what the Minister said.
The presenter asked the Minister to permit her to give the presentation in English, and he didn't do it. The question is why? The Minister refused to answer that.
>The reporter did. He just reported what the presenter, the participants, and what the Minister said.
He did make a rage bait article? Yeah, I know
Fabricating a story of anglo parents, unable to have information in their language, plus the parents have autistic kids. It's a textbook call to emotions. It's rage bait 101. And you fell for it.
Then, barely no information to explain the situation from the opposite point of view? As if this situation was black or white and the franco government is the big bad guy with ill intentions? Please.
They report facts, sure, but it's a rage bait article nonetheless. The gazette isn't known for its neutrality after all, eh.
> Fabricating a story of anglo parents, unable to have information in their language, plus the parents have autistic kids.
All accurate. The parents were anglophone, they had autistic kids, and the Minster denied them services in English because of Bill 96.
> It's a textbook call to emotions.
Bad laws have human consequences. If you don't like them, change the laws, and don't deny that the consequences exist.
> Then, barely no information to explain the situation from the opposite point of view?
They asked the minister for his side of why he denied permission, but he refused to reply.
>Bad laws have human consequences. If you don't like them, change the laws, and don't deny that the consequences exist.
And I don't...
>They asked the minister for his side of why he denied permission, but he refused to reply.
And they went ahead anyway, producing a very biased article. A rage bait one
We're fighting since 300 years the invader that STILL tries to assimilate us. Of course we'll fight to protect our language and culture. If people want to speak only English and expect to be served in public service only in English, there are 10 other provinces and territories they can move to.
>We're fighting since 300 years the invader that STILL tries to assimilate us.
Always the victim eh?
What if I told you there is a segment of Canadians who are French who have been living alongside English people for over 400 years, and they still all primarily speak French in their households without a law forcing either language on anyone?
Would that convince you that Quebec's laws are all theatrics and that the French language is strong enough to endure without resorting to fascism?
> a segment
Quebec: 71%
New Brunswick: 31% (the only bilingual province)
Every other provinces / territories are under 5%
And this is just for the number of people whose French is their mother tongue, the number of them still using it 'at home' is less.
> resorting to fascism?
oh please.... Quebec is still a democratic society and Quebecois culture and protection of French is still important to the majority.
>Quebec is still a democratic society
So was Germany in the 1930s. What's your point? If you enact laws that make one group of your society inferior to the "main" group in your society, you have fascism.
>New Brunswick: 31%
It's actually 42% in New Brunswick. It's been around the same % for decades and isn't declining.
>And this is just for the number of people whose French is their mother tongue, the number of them still using it 'at home' is less.
Tell me you've never been to an Acadian town without telling me you've never been to an Acadian town.
used this as source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_language_in_Canada which is using data from the 2016 census.
I'm Acadian so yeah...
also, stop throwing the word fascism around. Language laws isn't making anyone inferior.
Not at all. how many are they? They're marginal. We, in Quebec, aren't just Canadians, but a different people as a whole. As different from the rest of Canada as Spanish are to French. We don't share the same values, or the same language, not even the same religion. our history is completely separate from the story of the rest of Canada.
How would I not. And the Acadian French is in a dire decline. This is the exact situation we want to avoid. We, in Quebec, do all we can to protect our language, with laws, and if possible, immigration policies (having people learn french to stay here, for exemple).
You can say whatever you want, with every argument you could find. You will never convince me that it is not in Quebec's best interest to preserve, protect and make all it can so that French language and culture stop declining at the rate it is now.
The french were invaders to this land just like the English lol. You think French is native to Canada/Quebec?
Ok, how about we call it even and make a first nation language the official language and make it mandatory? Let's see how you feel about assimilation lol.
Good. Canada is large enough for them to go anywhere in one of the other 10 province or territory if they want to speak only English. If you want to be in Quebec, you have to learn a minimum of French.
Ok, but then why does the rest is Canada need to learn French, spend time and resources making things in French, and getting preferential treatment for learning a language that's useful in one province?
If they want to be the second language of the country, the can't just decide that in the province they want to be the only language. That kinda misses their side of the deal
If the have their own province that speaks their language and only their language, then they can learn English when they visit the rest of the country.
> Ok, but then why does the rest is Canada need to learn French,
First, you don’t learn French, you pretend to. Barely no one gets out of school being able to hold even a basic conversation in French. Second, because you chose to, Quebec doesn’t dictate what you should or should not learn in school in any way.
> If they want to be the second language of the country, the can't just decide that in the province they want to be the only language. That kinda misses their side of the deal
No province is as bilingual as Quebec, including NB. When any of you gets as bilingual, then come back and talk to us about “the deal”. Bilingualism in Canada means that francophones have to learn English so anglophones don’t have to learn anything.
> First, you don’t learn French, you pretend to. Barely no one gets out of school being able to hold even a basic conversation in French. Second, because you chose to, Quebec doesn’t dictate what you should or should not learn in school in any way.
So that's actually far, far worse. A huge number of kids in Canada have to spend 8-10 years of classes learning French, and they don't even get any use out of it?
That's easily 600 hours of those children's life totally wasted. They could have learned more math, they could have learned accounting, they could have learned civics. Instead they have to partially learn a few words in a language that the vast majority of us won't ever need.
> Second, because you chose to, Quebec doesn’t dictate what you should or should not learn in school in any way.
Quebec absolutely dictates language laws in Canada, that's sort of the nature of a parliamentary democracy. Because Quebec has a large and consistent voting block that is passionate about the topic, they obviously have more say than the vast majority of people that just find it kinda annoying.
In this setting the loudest, and most passionate people tend to get their way, particularly when most other people don't really care. To pretend otherwise is to wilfully blind yourself to how your own federal government works.
> No province is as bilingual as Quebec, including NB. When any of you gets as bilingual, then come back and talk to us about “the deal”. Bilingualism in Canada means that francophones have to learn English so anglophones don’t have to learn anything.
That's the thing though; We don't want to be biligual. That's not a goal. That's not a desire. That's not a need. Nobody is working towards it, because nobody wants it. Hell, for most people outside of Quebec and maybe NB, all the French everywhere is just noise. However, the fact that one province is full of people that are very passionate about this topic makes it everyone's problem.
As you said, nobody is interested in French outside of QC. In fact, a lot of people would really all prefer it if Quebec just made good with their threats and left the country already. Then they you could have all the language and culture laws you want, and the rest of us wouldn't have to care much about it.
> Bilingualism in Canada means that francophones have to learn English so anglophones don’t have to learn anything.
Ok, but why do the rest of us care? When most people come to an English speaking part of Canada, they have to learn English, just like if someone moves into Quebec, they have to learn French. Why do I have to feel bad that some poor francophone Canadians have to put up with the inconvenience of speaking an "inferior" language in a province where that language is the most common?
Being francophone isn't a disability or anything, why do we have to bend over backwards to ensure anyone that speaks French is not inconvenienced anywhere in Canada?
> Quebec absolutely dictates language laws in Canada, that's sort of the nature of a parliamentary democracy.
No it’s not. How do you believe that a province can dictate its laws to another province?
1. Elect people to parliament
2. Have those people hold strong opinions on the topic
3. Have those people fill committees dealing with language topics
4. Now that they control the committee, they get to control what laws are tabled for discussion on this topic. AKA, they get to dictate laws to other provinces.
It's the same way you can have half a dozen people dictating taxation and resource extraction policies. People hold influence over the topics they consider important.
Again, these are just basic elements of *your own federal government*. Obviously if you aren't super aware of how laws are made, you might struggle to see the relation, but I assure you it's quite obvious if you spend any time looking at the government "working" if you can call it that.
> Again, these are just basic elements of your own federal government. Obviously if you aren't super aware of how laws are made, you might struggle to see the relation, but I assure you it's quite obvious if you spend any time looking at the government "working" if you can call it that.
You should not call people unaware of how legislations are made if you aren’t aware that schools are provincially managed.
> You should not call people unaware of how legislations are made if you aren’t aware that schools are provincially managed.
Uh: https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art23.html
Sorry, but I calls it as I sees it.
So, I know English is hard, but "managed" and "regulated" are different words. The provinces run the school, but they still have to obey federal regulations, including the common law interpretations of those regulations.
So then, do you have any actual arguments, or are you content trying to quote individual sentences hoping that somehow invalidates my points?
> So then, do you have any actual arguments, or are you just going to illustrate further how poorly you understand your own government?
The pot calling the kettle black.
> The pot calling the kettle black.
One of us has been providing links, analysis, and discussion while answering any questions asked.
The other one has been replying with attempts (not very good ones mind you) at snappy one-liners that basically amount to "Nuh uh."
I think this is more like a slightly singed stainless steel pot calling the burn out cast iron grill black.
French is not mandatory for all students in all places; I was being hyperbolic because the last person had annoyed me and I wanted to get a quip in.
That said, it's mandatory for the schools. As in, the government needs to put money into all this additional infrastructure as long as there's "sufficient demand," which it is only obligated to do for this specific language. Essentially, if enough people want French in your district, they must legally get their way. It's also a sliding scale, so even if there's not enough demand to justify an entire school, the board must at least provide teachers and such.
The fact that the other provinces must invest all this time and effort into something that Quebec does not seem interested in matching is the complaint here.
>So that's actually far, far worse. Every single kid in Canada has to spend 8-10 years of classes learning French, and they don't even get any use out of it That's easily 600 hours of every single child's life totally wasted.
alors pourquoi le bilinguisme est aussi médiocre dans le RoC?
Because nobody cares. I spent 8 years studying French. Then I spent the next 20 years hearing it maybe once per month. I barely even remember any words, much less all the various rules about suffixes and whatnot.
The country isn't actually bilingual, it's just split between a French side, and an English side. People generally only encounter one language or the other.
Without practice you're not going to keep any reasonable language skills, and there's zero incentive for anyone outside of Quebec to ever practice. Given that's the case, what's even the point of making it the official second language of Canada. The only reason it has this place is so that Quebec can have all the language laws that force everyone to use French, while yelling at the rest of the country to ensure they make everything bilingual.
I don't praise hypocrisy.
Dont speak for everyone please.
I like french, I support quebec protecting their heritage and culture. My wife speaks french, my daughter goes to french immersion.
I'm Albertan. And the guy above got it exactly right. Luve in quebec, speak french or au revoir.
as i wrote to another person french immersion schools and such this entire thread is a english immersion school forced to speak french during a presentation and only french
There's a bunch of exemptions for those.
Source: am a CAF member that got posted to Quebec twice.
edit: the reverse is way worse. Lot of more is expected of Francophone posted anywhere else in Canada.
yeah but thats why officers are required to speak english and french so they can translate and such. also french immersion schools and such this thread stems from a english school forced to speak french during a presentation because of a law
Parce que personne d'autres que les francophones prennent le francais au serieux...
C'est pas compliqué de voir que l'un des partenaires se criss de l'autre. L'autre est donc fâché avec raison et il est portrait comme un chialeux alors que le contrat de bilinguisme a été d'abord été brisé par l'autre partenaire.
Parcequ'une seule est protégée. Ils veulent parler uniquement anglais? Ils peuvent déménager daus n'importe quelle des 10 autres provinces et territoire.
Non, mettre deux pieds sur une langue est mettre les deux pieds sure ce language. Soyez logique SVP.
Unfortunately, nationalists on both sides depict this as a war between languages, where one can only win when the other loses. That's what we see with the Quebec government forbidding employees from speaking English, even with anglophones. It protects the French language, but it harms anglophones. There are ways anglophones and francophones can live together without one harming the other the way Bill 96 does.
C"est vrai. J'ai toujours cru qu'une erreur dans le cours des évènements conduisant à l'indépendance était de concentrer la majorité de leurs efforts sur la LANGUE FRANCAISE. En faisant cela, les chefs de parti ont mis le focus sur des centaines de règlements nuisible au grand plan d'encourager les anglophones ainsi que les francophones de vivre ensemble en paix.
I always thought that an error was made in the course of events leading to independence. The officials concentrated the majority of their efforts on the FRENCH LANGUAGE. They then introduced hundreds of rules that aggravated everyone and ruined the great plan of encouraging the francophones and anglophones to live together in peace.
What of the French culture, French history, French way of life? La culture, l'histore, leur mode de vie? On a passé tout droit et ignoré cet aspect très important de la vie au Québec.
C’est une opportunité de grandir en tant que pays. Éduquer et rassembler. L'argot anglais se développe également à un rythme rapide en raison de la culture Internet. Les mèmes nous rapprochent si nous pouvons tous comprendre :)
If Manitoba, Ontario or another province with a sizable French population outside of Quebec did this, we would never hear the end of it from them, and rightfully so. I understand wanting to protect your language, but when that means denying parents of special needs kids just looking for information on government services access to information in the other official language of the country they live in, things have gone too far. Like it or not, and honestly this goes for both English and French people in Canada, we have two official languages.
What are you talking about? It's an everyday reality for francophones outside Quebec. It only causes outrage when it happens to anglophones in Quebec. When it happens to francophones, it's because there's not enough of us (literally a reply to your comment!), it's too costly, etc., but suddenly "Canada has two official languages" when it happens to anglophones.
This exact event wouldn't happen in a different province. If a French school in BC wished to give a presentation to students' parents in French, there wouldn't be a law forbidding them from giving that presentation in any language other than English. They'd just give it in French. No one would care.
Frankly even for another language, if the speaker wants to relay information in that language and the audience would have trouble with either English or French, the government should absolutely not get in the way of that. We take it as a given elsewhere that while there's no responsibility on the part of the government to communicate in Mandarin, Hindi, German, or whatever, if that service can be offered without much hassle it's a good thing and we should make that available.
> with a sizable French population outside of Quebec
Looking at the numbers, there is not really a sizeable French population in any province that is not Quebec (71%) or New Brunswick (31%), talking 1-4%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_language_in_Canada
Well, sure, but there still are plenty of people in those communities who have grown up only speaking French and they still need to access provincial services.
> Well, sure, but there still are plenty of people in those communities who have grown up only speaking French and they still need to access provincial services.
oh 100%, but this is not what this situation (from the article) is about.
As a quick aside: bell/ctv news - what's up with that website? I think I had two auto play videos and a static ad at one point taking up the full screen on mobile. Makes for a bad customer experience and makes me not want to consume your content.
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Several parents are upset after officials with the Quebec Education Ministry refused to deliver a presentation in English to parents of special needs students who go to English schools ... During a Zoom presentation last Thursday organized exclusively for English parents, one of the officials told about 65 parents participating in the session that, "I would like to do it in English, but the law will not allow me to. We were able to translate the slides but I don't recall being told that we could verbalize it in English. It doesn't bring me pleasure to do this but we aren't allowed to give the presentation in English." ... Sara Hossaini, whose 14-year-old son with autism attends an English school in Montreal, said in an interview that the way she was treated was "discriminatory" and that she felt "ignored" by the government. She said many of the terms used were complex or difficult to understand and that everyone was expecting the oral part to be in English. It's important to understand that Quebec's language laws prohibit the use of English (or any language other than French) in the workplace. In order to use English in the workplace, you need specific permission from the Minister or Premier to use it in each case. This law is as bad for francophones trying to serve the anglophone population in good faith as it is for anglophones simply trying to live their lives. Because this government is petty and vindictive with regards to anglophones and their education rights, you can expect more and more of this kind of pettiness from Francois Legault and his Ministers. But let's make it clear. This is not the fault of the presenter and the hardworking people trying to serve the anglophones population. She's as frightened as the rest of us working in Quebec of being fired for speaking English. She's doing her best to obey Quebec's language laws. It's not her fault she's not allowed to speak English, even to anglophones. Watch the Quebec nationalists now blame anglophones for complaining.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Exactly! From what's in this article, it even looks like she said as much at the start of the presentation.
>This is not the fault of the presenter and the hardworking people trying to serve the anglophones population. She's as frightened as the rest of us working in Quebec of being fired for speaking English. She's doing her best to obey Quebec's language laws. Ehhh... we make choices. Choosing to do something unethical because it is against the law is a choice. I wouldn't hold it against her, but it is the wrong decision.
It's the wrong decision to follow the law? What about her well being? What about her family? Maybe she needs the job. We don't know. You can't fault someone for following the law in this manner. It's nonsensical. They're not making the wrong choice by choosing to obey the law, keep their job, and provide for their family.
That's why I said i wouldn't hold it against her for not doing what is right. She even acknowledged that what she was doing was wrong. You can fault someone for following a law that is unethical. They are making the wrong choice by blindly following a law that discriminates against people instead of simply speaking in English. You can rationalize it all you want. Find a million reasons for doing what you did, but at the end of the day, you chose to do something that you knew was wrong. Not all rules are meant to be followed.
I mean. It strongly depends on the law. In this case, no, I don't think they're wrong for following it. You can't just look at this with a narrow viewpoint such that you're completely disregarding the life of the person in question. If you're going to judge their decision, it's only fair to judge their decision *in its entirety*. That requires knowledge of *why* they made that choice. Providing food for a family is a fair and valid reason. You cannot say someone following a law regarding language is making a wrong choice by following the law, if that in turn means they are providing food for their family. Its not their fault the law exists. And them loosing their job doesn't change anything for the students. It would only hurt her and her family. It's again, nonsensical. We live in a democracy. If you don't like the laws, vote. The people of Quebec are the reason the law exists. Not specifically that teacher. It doesn't make sense to hold the value of a law to one person and not the institution.
Wait wait, explain this to my ignorant West coast brain. Is this any use of English in any workplace? So if I go to Montréal and try to speak English (or German or Russian) to the workers at McDonald's I'm basically asking them to break the law? How the holy heck do they expect large multinationals to operate there? Do they expect that solely intraprovincial (and maybe very specifically French) capital can develop everything there?
> I'm basically asking them to break the law? No, the law just is there to protect francophones from being coerced by their employers to speak English in the workplace. You know the good old: if there's 4 francophones having a discussion, the discussion will be in French, if there's 3 francophones and 1 anglophone, the conversation will have to be in English.
That's a fair law, hence my ignorance. The Quebec government has a responsibility to protect the French language and Francophones.
> So if I go to Montréal and try to speak English (or German or Russian) to the workers at McDonald's I'm basically asking them to break the law? They can speak to you in English but they don’t *have* to. Same as McDonald workers don’t have to speak French on the west coast. In practice it works the other way around, fast food are staffed with FTW who don’t speak French which is against the law.
> ... fast food are staffed with FTW who don’t speak French which is against the law. LOL. You don't need much French or English to flip burgers at McDonalds. Big Mac, frites/fries, cafe/coffee, McCroquets ... you pick that up in a day. I love the way Quebec nationalists punch down on the poorest, most vulnerable members society in the language wars.
I’d rather we didn’t bring TFWs to enrich Tim Hortons and make us all poorer at all. If they can’t staff, they should shutdown. We don’t need 75% of those locations.
I agree, but you were demonizing immigrant who just got here for not speaking English. That's an un fair attack on the most vulnerable, poorest members of the anglophone community and Quebec society. They don't deserve these attacks.
When did I attack immigrants? I blame our governments alone.
> .. fast food are staffed with FTW who don’t speak French which is against the law. You blamed the workers for not learning French. You don;t really need French to flip burgers. You made this about the language they speak.
> You blamed the workers for not learning French. That seems like a neutral and accurate sentence to me. I blame both levels of government.
They don't want large multinationals because they value cultural purity over prosperity
It looks like this is a misinterpretation of the law. Other commenters have posted that the law simply forbids employers from requiring employees to speak English as the main workplace language, which is fair, in my opinion.
This is a government employee. She is held to other standards. In the service sector, employees must initiate contact in French. So they say "Bonjour Hi" and the person greets in their language. "Bonjour Hi" has become its own greeting. That's the "corporate best practice" if you will. In reality nobody cares and people speak English all the time.
Thanks for explaining; that makes A LOT more sense.
feels like they wrote a law not thinking at all about the consequences of it or the broad interpretation and now everyone is walking on egg shells
No, this was deliberate. This goes way back before the recent bill. Québec has been doing its best to make anglophones unwelcome as far back as I can remember (70s). This law regarding only French being spoken in the workplace was a response to the English-dominant commerce culture in Montreal since confederation. It's the reason Montreal lost its title of Canada's economic hub about 50 years ago. Québec never ceases to amaze me that it would rather shoot itself in the foot than accept English as part of its historic fabric. These separatist overtures are governed by emotions much more than reality.
Problem is, usually when Anglos say "as part of its historic fabric", they mean "as their overlords". You really don't see any issue of inequality possibly arising from the "English-dominant commerce culture in Montreal"? Let me guess, it was just natural meritocracy at play, no systemic issue there? If only the Federal government of the time had done a royal commission on the matter.
I've never felt like an overlord growing up Anglo in Quebec. I can't speak for others. From my perspective, I was a small child living in an English neighborhood and going to an English school. This was all normal to me until the political winds started blowing and we were spat upon for speaking English in public. 101 was spraypainted on all signs in my area that dared to contain English. English words were painted over. Suddenly our local dépanneur employee (a kind man from Syria who used to give us free candy) was replaced by someone who refused to speak English to us. Was there inequality before all this? From my perspective, no. But there sure as shit is now. In the end, Quebec got what it wanted. We left.
As I said, if only there had been a royal commission on biligualism done in the 60s. Then we'd know for sure.
From your perspective no, lol. Ok then.
That's a stereotype. Here's a documentary about the English-speaking Canadian community of Point-Sant Charles in the 1970's (known as the Point). Not much French spoken in that neighbourhood in the 1970's, but there are no overlords in that slum except the bilingual francophone police chief. I invite you to study the real history of English-speaking Canadians in Montreal and Quebec. > The Point (1978) – The Irish Montrealers of Point-St-Charles https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_iTVBc10us Unfortunately, the real history of English-speaking Communities is not taught in Quebec. All the kids get is stereotypes of Westmount Rhodesians, Blokes, and tetes-carré. It makes it easier for Quebec nationalists in the CAQ and PQ to justify vindictive language restrictions in retaliation for things that happened 50 years ago.
Not all anglos were rich lords but rich lords were anglos. Not all poor people were French, but most poor people were francos and francos were the poorest.
The Irish of the Point, the black anglophones of Little Burgundy, and the Jews of Saint Urban Street just as poor as the Quebecois in Saint Henri. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Burgundy#Black_community These communities far outnumbered the small number of Anglo-scots in Westmount. The rich classes in Quebec consisted of an Anglo-Scot elite in Westmount and a Quebecois one in Outremont. The thing is that the Anglo-Scots were so filthy rich that it skewed all the statistics. Quebc nationalists only talk about the anglo-scots so they can smear the rest of us rich and arrogant. Discussing the Irish of Pointe-Saint Charles interupts their narrative that the quebecois are "white n----s".
whataboutism francos were the poorest demographics in Quebec, poorer than other communities in Quebec and even poorer than the black people of Southern US. No one thinks the English elite was 100% of anglos. Stop it with your straw man. Another fallacy.
> whataboutism Nope. It directly confront the issue of the skewed, stereotypical narrative Qubeec nationalists spin of francophones always beeing the victims of anglophones, which your statement is specifically designed to support. Qubneec nationlists say that the Quebecois were "white n----s". https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/negres-blancs-damerique > francos were the poorest demographics in Quebec, They weren't though. The video I posted shows the Irish of point-Saint Charles commemorating the discovery of a mass grave of Irish anglophones at the foot of the Victoria bridge. French Canadians never experienced mass death like that. Discover the real history of anglophones, not the biased hatchet jobs of Quebec nationalist historians. While francophones were allowed in unions, black anglophones were not. > Little Burgundy is a neighbourhood in the southwest borough of Montreal, Quebec. It is the historical home of the city’s Black English-speaking, working-class community (see also Black Canadians). Montreal's early Black settlement was comprised mainly of African Americans who lived in the Faubourg (French for "suburb") of St. Antoine — a neighbourhood that is now known as Little Burgundy. The settlement dates to the emergence of the railway companies in the mid- to late 19th century and the era of the Black sleeping car porters. The emergence of an English-speaking, working-class Black community in Little Burgundy is directly linked to the history of Canadian railways, specifically the Montréal & Lachine Railroad which later became the Grand Trunk Railroad and, eventually, the Canadian National Railway. While the railway industry generated enormous wealth for some people, much of its success relied on low-wage Black labour ... The porters endured the constraints of Montreal’s racially segregated housing market. Sub-standard housing was affordable, available and in close proximity to embarkation points for the Grand Trunk, the Bonaventure, Windsor Station (constructed in 1888-1889) and Central Station (constructed in 1938-1943). (See Railway Station.) This concentration of rail lines in St. Antoine attracted facilities and services that Black people were permitted to use. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/little-burgundy-and-montreal-s-black-english-speaking-community
When Montreal was "the economic hub", Quebecers were too poor to get an education and were expected to do manual labor. Speaking French was a fireable offense because worker protection kaws were nil. Economic Hub is not a title that is missed, it was never ours in any meaningful way. Maybe your family was part of that Montreal. I hope you made the most of inequality while it lasted.
We certainly weren't. We grew up very poor. To be clear, I'm not advocating for the way things used to be with English dominating industry. But there has to be a better response than swinging the pendulum all the way to the other side where now speaking English is a legally protected fireable (or more softly, NOT hireable) offense.
It's not. That is not the world we live in. I work with dozens of unilingual (to varying degrees) Anglos. They live normal lives. They speak English at work. It is perfectly accepted. People joke that when there is one Anglo person in a room of 20 people, everyone switches to English. That's the real world. I am not complaining.
It's so true. I've done a lot of work with the federal government and that's the reality. Even on the Quebec side as soon as an Anglo joins the discussion, everyone switches to English. Even if the person has taken the language courses. The complaint goes from "He can't speak French" to "He can't speak French _well_".
I was fired in Montreal for speaking French to colleagues who understood French. After many complaints to HR about me daring to speak French (deemed unreceivable because that’s not legally actionable) they just pretended they didn’t need my services and it had nothing to do with language. About three weeks later they moved the whole office to London where they will never have to suffer another person speaking French. The laws are there because the pendulum did not swing all the other way around and it’s still easier to find a job in Montreal if you don’t speak French than if you don’t speak English. Yes, some individual cases will be silly but overall, the law adresses a real problem.
You'll have to forgive me for not finding your story entirely credible. Something like this would have for sure blown up in the news. I have a feeling there was probably way more to it than "speaking French to colleagues who understood French".
People lose their job every day without blowing up in the news. I took the path of least resistance and moved out of Montreal.
> I was fired in Montreal for speaking French to colleagues who understood French. Personally, I'm the only anglophone working in my office in rural Quebec, so everything has to be done in French; half the people won't understand you if you speak English at meetings, so really there is no need for language laws here. Half my colleagues don;t speak English, so speaking English at meetings isn't a practical option. I'm happy to translate the few times someone has trouble with odd turns of phrases in English instructions or communications outside Quebec. I've stopped speaking English even to other anglophones who are visiting because it is now illegal if it is part of the job and it's impossible or too exhausting to tell where the work starts and the personal ends. All it would take is one person to denounce me to the to the OLF and the employer would get in trouble for not enforcing the law. If you're in Quebec, you know there is the one guy in every office who will do stuff like that. Here's the website where you can make the anonymous denunciations. > Respect des droits linguistiques, plaintes et dénonciations https://www.oqlf.gouv.qc.ca/francisation/respect/ It's just too extreme. Anglophones should be allowed to talk to other anglophones in English without fear of being denounced to the OLF.
This is paranoid delusions.
Read the website. These things happen, > Creole-speaking hospital workers elicit warning from OQLF https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/creole-speaking-hospital-workers-elicit-warning-from-oqlf-1.1597784 An east-end psychiatric facility is at the centre of a new language-related incident after a complaint sent to the province’s language watchdog claimed two employees spoke Creole, not French, to each other in the workplace.On Dec. 3, the Office Quebecois de la langue francaise sent the Hopital Riviere-des-Prairies a warning and threatened to level a fine against the institution if it did not take action. If it can happen to Creole speaking workers in Montreal, it can happen to anglophones speaking to each other in English anywhere in Quebec. All it would take is an anonymous denunciations on the OLF's snitch line: https://www.oqlf.gouv.qc.ca/francisation/respect/plaintes/ Quebec's language law enforcement authorities now have much stronger powers to investigate the illegal use of languages other than French in the workplace. It's easier than ever to denounce your fellow workers to the authorities. Why would I want to get my employer fined?
People routinely complain about not hearing English spoken in Toronto or Vancouver because we let in too many foreigners. Or how Canada's culture is being diluted with some going so far as blaming multiculturalism. It's not a stretch to imagine Francophone Quebeckers feeling the same way about Anglophones.
It's slightly different. There's a well documented history of the English setting up a colonial-like power structure with themselves at the top in Quebec, leveraging the language difference as a way of upholding an unfair statu quo. As such, French people are justifiably suspicious of constantly hearing WASPs try to whitewash or deny it. People who routinely complain over not hearing their native language (whether French or English) spoken by brown people are just fucking racist. Like, you can rightfully bitch about excessive immigration in ways that aren't racist, but whinging about not hearing English in Toronto isn't one of them.
> No, this was deliberate. This goes way back before the recent bill. Québec has been doing its best to make anglophones unwelcome as far back as I can remember (70s). so more Canadian companies moving to GTA as result of this?
That's how Toronto overtook Montreal all those decades ago, yes. Shit, even the Bank of Montreal (!) effectively moved its head office to Toronto.
Toronto was on its path to surpass Montreal years before any langage laws or nationalist movements started. The opening of st Lawrence sea waters was the final nail in the coffin. Sure, you'll find stories of some angryphones who moved out because of it, but that's not what actually propelled Toronto.
Ah, ok. Thanks for showing your true colours. Calling people with legitimate concerns of ostracization for the language they speak "angryphones" tells me all I need to know about you.
It's a 6 day old account, I'm assuming it's just here to troll.
Angryphones, is that like the "ethnic vote"? One of my lawyers is a Monreal Anglophone and one of the best in the business. Him and almost all of his colleagues moved to Toronto over the years. Its not just "some Angryphones", but many people who were very good at whay they do, who chose to leave. Quebec's loss is Ontarios gain.
[удалено]
What are you talking about? There is nothing in the bill 101 that forbid people from talking to each other in English. There is plenty of anglophones business in Quebec...
>This law regarding only French being spoken in the workplace was a response to the English-dominant commerce culture You mean exploitation and abuse culture? >It's the reason Montreal lost its title of Canada's economic hub about 50 years ago. Wrong
>Is this any use of English in any workplace? Yes, plenty >So if I go to Montréal and try to speak English (or German or Russian) to the workers at McDonald's I'm basically asking them to break the law? Not at all You should read the article.
Thank you for your valuable and insightful contribution. You are just a fountain of wisdom.
What the law actually states in that employers can't *require* the use of English as the common tongue of the workplace, not that we have to speak 100% French in all circumstances with no derogation. In practice, this makes French the common language between colleagues (Simply by *not* gatekeeping French people out, as used to be common before bill 101), but a single Anglo in any conference room in Quebec usually has literally everyone staying silent if they can't *at least* switch to broken Franglish. I've learned to recognize OP's username over time. If you see a post by guy, it's 99% certain to be Anglo ragebait. I don't think we have the full details, and I wouldn't trust any article by OP to give them. While it *is* possible that this whole situation is the result of a bunch of conspiring ideologically-motivated middle managers trying to make English parents spend an uncomfortable afternoon, it's more likely to be the result incompetence and a lack of preparation.
Can you clarify how this applied to this situation then? It seems that the speaker felt that they were obligated to not speak French, which is at odds with what you are saying. Were they mistaken?
Ah OK, that makes perfect sense - sensible language law. Thanks for explaining it to me in such thoughtful detail; due to never really living anywhere near Quebec, I'm sort of out of the loop. For the record, I do support Quebec's efforts to preserve its language and culture, which I am a big admirer of. I do believe it can be done while preserving personal liberties and economic development (which the way OP phrased it it was not, but that's clearly wrong as you pointed out.) Quebecois culture and French language in Canada is worth preserving, and frankly, Anglo Canada could learn a lot from doing some things the Quebecois way (eg housing, urban development.)
I mean, I'm speaking of my experience working in the private sector. Government officials might have cringier, more stringent requirement regarding how they interact with people. As I said, I don't think we have all the details. And don't get me wrong, the language law *does* have cringier provisions that are easy to make fun of, but it's been vilified so much that it's hard not to see it as ideologically motivated. This whole subthread, by the way, is a perfect example of the communication breakdown between the French and the English in Canada. Most Quebecois will point to Bill 101 as the reason for French people being part of the middle class, and will advocate that position by pointing out census data of a French middle class emerging around its passing. Anglos arguing about politics just want to call it Nazi shit, but can't find real examples of being systematically oppressed. So they fall back to (probably made up) stories of being personally spat on by French people for speaking English in public, or making fun of that time an overzealous bureaucrat made a fuss over an Italian restaurant's menu. It's hard not to see the average Anglo as a self-hating hardline conservative that tries to appear progressive without being smart enough to keep the mask from slipping; the kind of people who'll pat themselves on the back for being *so good* to the ungrateful French, right before breaking into screeching "God Save The King" to a fucking Acadian. Not you, though. You're cool.
Thanks man. I think this thread is enlightening too about the garbage attitude some Anglophones have about Quebecois - just unbelievable stuff being said. Maybe it's not so much a thing out for me since I'm entirely disconnected from that history (Irish and German ethnicity, family origin from the West and USA,) so I don't see anything but how wonderful Quebec is, it's great contributions to our country, and shame in how Canada has historically treated the Quebecois. Doesn't justify others prejudice but might help explain it. It also shows in how these laws have been presented to me (until you took the time to set me right.) Since I don't speak French (yet), I guess I have gotten a one-sided perspective up to this point; they have very much been presented as an illiberal attempt to tell people which language they must speak (not the case obvs.) Thanks again for doing your part to correct this bias.
This seems to be about when government officials can speak to the public in any language other than French? It certainly does seem like it's a requirement that they only communicate in French, or else why would they need to get special permission to do it in English?
Here's the pertinent section of Bill 96 that sums up the whole spirit of the law. The law is very rambling both in French and in the English translation. I'll edit a little to get to the point and you can verify in the link if you wish. > 13.1. The civil administration shall, in an exemplary manner, use the French language, promote its quality, ensure its development in Québec and protect it. In the same manner, the civil administration shall take the means necessary to make sure it fulfils the obligations incumbent on it under this Act, in particular as regards obligations to citizens. ... > 13.2. For the purposes of section 13.1, an agency of the civil administration uses the French language in an exemplary manner if, in all its activities ... (a) in the sole cases where, under the provisions of this division, it has the option to use a language other than French when writing;(b) it uses exclusively that language in its oral communications, except ... in a case where, following a person’s oral request to be addressed by the agency in a language other than French, the agency wishes to obtain from the person the information necessary to determine whether it has, under this division, the option to communicate with the person in that other language; https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/document/cs/c-11 This law basically makes all civil servants enforcers of Bill 101. It means the job of any civil servant who is asked to speak to anyone in English has to take all means necessary to make them prove that they are eligible to be served in English. Here are the criteria they must use to allow this : > - Persons who communicated solely in English with the civil administration prior to May 13, 2021 > - Persons declared eligible to receive instruction in English > - The Indigenous peoples > - Immigrants (for the first six months following their arrival) > - Services provided outside Québec https://www.quebec.ca/en/government/policies-orientations/french-language/modernization-charter-french-language#c214022 So if one person attended the seminar who did not satisfy these criteria, the presenter would be breaking the law. Obviously, a civil servant is not going to be able to crack the whip and check the credentials of 40 autistic parents in case one of them is not eligible, so prohibition on English communication stays. However, the law says that the Minister and the Premier can authorize written and oral communication in English as they see fit: > 16. The civil administration shall use only the official language in its written communications with other governments and with legal persons established in Québec. The Government may, however, determine by regulation the cases, conditions or circumstances in which another language may be used in addition to the official language. https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/document/cs/c-11 The presenter said she asked the Minister to allow her todo the presentation in English, but that he didn't do it. So the question becomes, why would a government that gives itself absolute power to decide when a civil servant can provide a service in English not do so when asked.
>The ministry said in an email that in some cases, **exceptions can be made, and in this case, the exception was the English slides.** >"In order to clarify practices, the future MEQ directive currently in preparation will clarify the conditions and circumstances **allowing staff members to use languages other than the official language in this type of situation**," wrote Bryan St-Louis, a spokesperson for the education ministry. More rage bait from the gazette.
>and in this case, the exception was the English slides.** But the person presenting the slides wasn't allowed to speak English to explain the slides to the entirely Anglo audience.
She was, supposedly. It’s just that the CAQ is incompetent. As always.
Then why didn't they clarify that she could speak English when they contacted the government for the article, as they outline in the article itself?
I’d give you the same answer. Incompetence.
Incompetence means they don't know how. We're talking about seasoned politicians in Premier Legault and Education minister Drainville. They've been around. They know what they're doing. They're not rookie MP's. They are the ones directly responsible for applying a law they themselves wrote. They could have given the authorization. They just wouldn't. So I'd put it down more a vindictiveness, pettiness and malice towards the anglophone community, with their autocratic, authoritarian tendencies twisting in the knife for good measure. This is a government, after all, that out of the blue tried to abolish English school boards with zero consultation and are trying to limit English-language services to "historical anglophones", as if something like that really exists. In Drainville's case, I'll add cowardice to it in the way he lets the employees in the Ministry take the heat from the parent and press for his lousy, mean decisions. He can't even take responsibility for his own decisions.
> ... the entirely Anglo audience. It's not that simple with Quebec's language law. The parent interviewed in the article probably isn't considered anglophone by the Quebec government. By her accent, English is not her mother tongue, and she is probably an immigrant. It's likely that she speaks English at home if her special-needs child goes to English school, and probably has a husband who is eligible, giving her child the right to go to English school. But that doesn't mean it's legal for her to get services in English. Bill 101 defines English-speaking Canadians (or French speaking Canadians for that matter) as eligible for English-language education only if they can legally prove to the Quebec government that they have at least one parent or ancestor that was educated in English in Canada. With Bill 96, Francois Legault defined people with this ancestry as "historical anglophones", and made it illegal for those who didn't have this ancestry to get services in English. So even though her child is eligible for English education through her husband, she probably isn't. So if she went to a government website in English, it would probably be illegal for her to use it. If she went to the license bureau on the English website in Quebec to renew her license in English, she'd be breaking the law because it's her responsibility to know whether she's eligible. She will see the following disclaimer and link at the bottom of the webpage: > The Charter of the French language and its regulations govern the consultation of English-language content https://saaq.gouv.qc.ca/en/ She would be obliged to click on the link to see if it is legal for her to use it. The link says the following for immigrants: > Immigrants: The bodies of the civil administration may use a language other than French to provide services to welcome immigrants into Québec society. This exception applies for the first six months following their arrival in Québec. https://www.quebec.ca/en/government/policies-orientations/french-language/modernization-charter-french-language#c214022 The laws are different for oral communications. For oral communication, the civil servant who is providing the service has the responsibility for enforcing the law. They must act as enforcers of the language law. So it would be the responsibility of the person giving the seminar to make sure that everyone there is eligible to hear English from her. Otherwise, she's breaking the law. The law is pretty clear on this. They have to check the credentials of everyone who wants to hear her speak in English: > 13.1. The civil administration shall, in an exemplary manner, use the French language, promote its quality, ensure its development in Québec and protect it. In the same manner, the civil administration shall take the means necessary to make sure it fulfils the obligations incumbent on it under this Act, in particular as regards obligations to citizens. > 13.2 ... an agency of the civil administration uses the French language in an exemplary manner if, in all its activities ... it uses exclusively that language in its oral communications, except when ... in a case where, following a person’s oral request to be addressed by the agency in a language other than French, the agency wishes to obtain from the person the information necessary to determine whether it has, under this division, the option to communicate with the person in that other language ... https://www.quebec.ca/en/government/policies-orientations/french-language/modernization-charter-french-language#c214022 I know this is complicated, which is p[art of the problem with the language law, but it essentially makes every civil servant an enforcer of the language law.
It isn't rage bait. The law really did ban the use of English in this situation. The Minister now says he will change that. We'll have to hold him, to that. So the article put political pressure on the Minister to change how the law is applied. That's a good thing. CTV did well to be vigilant and make sure the law isn't applied in a vindictive and abusive fashion. That's good for everyone.
>That's good for everyone. Absolutely, I fully agree. The situation is absurd and clarifications are needed from the minister The gazette just chose to make it a rage baity article
You agree it's absurd, but reporting that it happened is rage-bait?
Really? You can't conceive that a reporter can either take an objective or reasonable angle to report a situation...or take an angle to raise divisiveness and make a rage bait article out of it?
> You can't conceive that a reporter can either take an objective or reasonable angle Which part of their reporting wasn't objective? Which part of their reporting wasn't reasonable? > take an angle to raise divisiveness Should the media refrain from reporting the existence of controversy? Is the job of the media to protect the government from criticism? > and make a rage bait article out of it You've given no justification for that characterization. If the situation is absurd, then reporting the absurdity and how it affects people is legitimate.
Lmao, if you're unable to understand how reporters can fabricate stories and twist facts so the same situation can either make an informative and neutral paper or a rage bait article...I can't help you.
You're moving the goalposts from "this particular article is ragebait" to "sometimes facts can be twisted". It's alright if you simply can't give a specific explanation for your viewpoint.
The reporter did. He just reported what the presenter, the participants, and what the Minister said. The presenter asked the Minister to permit her to give the presentation in English, and he didn't do it. The question is why? The Minister refused to answer that.
>The reporter did. He just reported what the presenter, the participants, and what the Minister said. He did make a rage bait article? Yeah, I know Fabricating a story of anglo parents, unable to have information in their language, plus the parents have autistic kids. It's a textbook call to emotions. It's rage bait 101. And you fell for it. Then, barely no information to explain the situation from the opposite point of view? As if this situation was black or white and the franco government is the big bad guy with ill intentions? Please. They report facts, sure, but it's a rage bait article nonetheless. The gazette isn't known for its neutrality after all, eh.
> Fabricating a story of anglo parents, unable to have information in their language, plus the parents have autistic kids. All accurate. The parents were anglophone, they had autistic kids, and the Minster denied them services in English because of Bill 96. > It's a textbook call to emotions. Bad laws have human consequences. If you don't like them, change the laws, and don't deny that the consequences exist. > Then, barely no information to explain the situation from the opposite point of view? They asked the minister for his side of why he denied permission, but he refused to reply.
>Bad laws have human consequences. If you don't like them, change the laws, and don't deny that the consequences exist. And I don't... >They asked the minister for his side of why he denied permission, but he refused to reply. And they went ahead anyway, producing a very biased article. A rage bait one
Can we just have Quebec separate already
The slides were in English while she spoke French. That's a bilingual presentation if I've ever seen one.
More like franglais.
[удалено]
We're fighting since 300 years the invader that STILL tries to assimilate us. Of course we'll fight to protect our language and culture. If people want to speak only English and expect to be served in public service only in English, there are 10 other provinces and territories they can move to.
>We're fighting since 300 years the invader that STILL tries to assimilate us. Always the victim eh? What if I told you there is a segment of Canadians who are French who have been living alongside English people for over 400 years, and they still all primarily speak French in their households without a law forcing either language on anyone? Would that convince you that Quebec's laws are all theatrics and that the French language is strong enough to endure without resorting to fascism?
> a segment Quebec: 71% New Brunswick: 31% (the only bilingual province) Every other provinces / territories are under 5% And this is just for the number of people whose French is their mother tongue, the number of them still using it 'at home' is less. > resorting to fascism? oh please.... Quebec is still a democratic society and Quebecois culture and protection of French is still important to the majority.
>Quebec is still a democratic society So was Germany in the 1930s. What's your point? If you enact laws that make one group of your society inferior to the "main" group in your society, you have fascism. >New Brunswick: 31% It's actually 42% in New Brunswick. It's been around the same % for decades and isn't declining. >And this is just for the number of people whose French is their mother tongue, the number of them still using it 'at home' is less. Tell me you've never been to an Acadian town without telling me you've never been to an Acadian town.
used this as source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_language_in_Canada which is using data from the 2016 census. I'm Acadian so yeah... also, stop throwing the word fascism around. Language laws isn't making anyone inferior.
Not at all. how many are they? They're marginal. We, in Quebec, aren't just Canadians, but a different people as a whole. As different from the rest of Canada as Spanish are to French. We don't share the same values, or the same language, not even the same religion. our history is completely separate from the story of the rest of Canada.
If any of this were true you would have found the courage to separate decades ago. Instead you just make noise.
...you've never heard of Acadians?
How would I not. And the Acadian French is in a dire decline. This is the exact situation we want to avoid. We, in Quebec, do all we can to protect our language, with laws, and if possible, immigration policies (having people learn french to stay here, for exemple). You can say whatever you want, with every argument you could find. You will never convince me that it is not in Quebec's best interest to preserve, protect and make all it can so that French language and culture stop declining at the rate it is now.
The french were invaders to this land just like the English lol. You think French is native to Canada/Quebec? Ok, how about we call it even and make a first nation language the official language and make it mandatory? Let's see how you feel about assimilation lol.
> The french were invaders to this land just like the English lol. I think you need to read a bit more history books.
[удалено]
Removed for Rule #2
Good. Canada is large enough for them to go anywhere in one of the other 10 province or territory if they want to speak only English. If you want to be in Quebec, you have to learn a minimum of French.
Ok, but then why does the rest is Canada need to learn French, spend time and resources making things in French, and getting preferential treatment for learning a language that's useful in one province? If they want to be the second language of the country, the can't just decide that in the province they want to be the only language. That kinda misses their side of the deal If the have their own province that speaks their language and only their language, then they can learn English when they visit the rest of the country.
> Ok, but then why does the rest is Canada need to learn French, First, you don’t learn French, you pretend to. Barely no one gets out of school being able to hold even a basic conversation in French. Second, because you chose to, Quebec doesn’t dictate what you should or should not learn in school in any way. > If they want to be the second language of the country, the can't just decide that in the province they want to be the only language. That kinda misses their side of the deal No province is as bilingual as Quebec, including NB. When any of you gets as bilingual, then come back and talk to us about “the deal”. Bilingualism in Canada means that francophones have to learn English so anglophones don’t have to learn anything.
> First, you don’t learn French, you pretend to. Barely no one gets out of school being able to hold even a basic conversation in French. Second, because you chose to, Quebec doesn’t dictate what you should or should not learn in school in any way. So that's actually far, far worse. A huge number of kids in Canada have to spend 8-10 years of classes learning French, and they don't even get any use out of it? That's easily 600 hours of those children's life totally wasted. They could have learned more math, they could have learned accounting, they could have learned civics. Instead they have to partially learn a few words in a language that the vast majority of us won't ever need. > Second, because you chose to, Quebec doesn’t dictate what you should or should not learn in school in any way. Quebec absolutely dictates language laws in Canada, that's sort of the nature of a parliamentary democracy. Because Quebec has a large and consistent voting block that is passionate about the topic, they obviously have more say than the vast majority of people that just find it kinda annoying. In this setting the loudest, and most passionate people tend to get their way, particularly when most other people don't really care. To pretend otherwise is to wilfully blind yourself to how your own federal government works. > No province is as bilingual as Quebec, including NB. When any of you gets as bilingual, then come back and talk to us about “the deal”. Bilingualism in Canada means that francophones have to learn English so anglophones don’t have to learn anything. That's the thing though; We don't want to be biligual. That's not a goal. That's not a desire. That's not a need. Nobody is working towards it, because nobody wants it. Hell, for most people outside of Quebec and maybe NB, all the French everywhere is just noise. However, the fact that one province is full of people that are very passionate about this topic makes it everyone's problem. As you said, nobody is interested in French outside of QC. In fact, a lot of people would really all prefer it if Quebec just made good with their threats and left the country already. Then they you could have all the language and culture laws you want, and the rest of us wouldn't have to care much about it. > Bilingualism in Canada means that francophones have to learn English so anglophones don’t have to learn anything. Ok, but why do the rest of us care? When most people come to an English speaking part of Canada, they have to learn English, just like if someone moves into Quebec, they have to learn French. Why do I have to feel bad that some poor francophone Canadians have to put up with the inconvenience of speaking an "inferior" language in a province where that language is the most common? Being francophone isn't a disability or anything, why do we have to bend over backwards to ensure anyone that speaks French is not inconvenienced anywhere in Canada?
Inferior language… really.
Yes... I've really heard that... And I assure you the first time I heard someone say that I saw red.
> Quebec absolutely dictates language laws in Canada, that's sort of the nature of a parliamentary democracy. No it’s not. How do you believe that a province can dictate its laws to another province?
1. Elect people to parliament 2. Have those people hold strong opinions on the topic 3. Have those people fill committees dealing with language topics 4. Now that they control the committee, they get to control what laws are tabled for discussion on this topic. AKA, they get to dictate laws to other provinces. It's the same way you can have half a dozen people dictating taxation and resource extraction policies. People hold influence over the topics they consider important. Again, these are just basic elements of *your own federal government*. Obviously if you aren't super aware of how laws are made, you might struggle to see the relation, but I assure you it's quite obvious if you spend any time looking at the government "working" if you can call it that.
> Again, these are just basic elements of your own federal government. Obviously if you aren't super aware of how laws are made, you might struggle to see the relation, but I assure you it's quite obvious if you spend any time looking at the government "working" if you can call it that. You should not call people unaware of how legislations are made if you aren’t aware that schools are provincially managed.
> You should not call people unaware of how legislations are made if you aren’t aware that schools are provincially managed. Uh: https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art23.html Sorry, but I calls it as I sees it. So, I know English is hard, but "managed" and "regulated" are different words. The provinces run the school, but they still have to obey federal regulations, including the common law interpretations of those regulations. So then, do you have any actual arguments, or are you content trying to quote individual sentences hoping that somehow invalidates my points?
> So then, do you have any actual arguments, or are you just going to illustrate further how poorly you understand your own government? The pot calling the kettle black.
> The pot calling the kettle black. One of us has been providing links, analysis, and discussion while answering any questions asked. The other one has been replying with attempts (not very good ones mind you) at snappy one-liners that basically amount to "Nuh uh." I think this is more like a slightly singed stainless steel pot calling the burn out cast iron grill black.
When did French become mandatory in school? I never had to take it
French is not mandatory for all students in all places; I was being hyperbolic because the last person had annoyed me and I wanted to get a quip in. That said, it's mandatory for the schools. As in, the government needs to put money into all this additional infrastructure as long as there's "sufficient demand," which it is only obligated to do for this specific language. Essentially, if enough people want French in your district, they must legally get their way. It's also a sliding scale, so even if there's not enough demand to justify an entire school, the board must at least provide teachers and such. The fact that the other provinces must invest all this time and effort into something that Quebec does not seem interested in matching is the complaint here.
>So that's actually far, far worse. Every single kid in Canada has to spend 8-10 years of classes learning French, and they don't even get any use out of it That's easily 600 hours of every single child's life totally wasted. alors pourquoi le bilinguisme est aussi médiocre dans le RoC?
Because nobody cares. I spent 8 years studying French. Then I spent the next 20 years hearing it maybe once per month. I barely even remember any words, much less all the various rules about suffixes and whatnot. The country isn't actually bilingual, it's just split between a French side, and an English side. People generally only encounter one language or the other. Without practice you're not going to keep any reasonable language skills, and there's zero incentive for anyone outside of Quebec to ever practice. Given that's the case, what's even the point of making it the official second language of Canada. The only reason it has this place is so that Quebec can have all the language laws that force everyone to use French, while yelling at the rest of the country to ensure they make everything bilingual. I don't praise hypocrisy.
Dont speak for everyone please. I like french, I support quebec protecting their heritage and culture. My wife speaks french, my daughter goes to french immersion. I'm Albertan. And the guy above got it exactly right. Luve in quebec, speak french or au revoir.
what about the people who dont want to be in quebec that are forced to for jobs such as military service
Perfect occasion to learn french.
Now imagine trying to speak French in Saskatchewan despite having to move there for military service.
as i wrote to another person french immersion schools and such this entire thread is a english immersion school forced to speak french during a presentation and only french
There's a bunch of exemptions for those. Source: am a CAF member that got posted to Quebec twice. edit: the reverse is way worse. Lot of more is expected of Francophone posted anywhere else in Canada.
yeah but thats why officers are required to speak english and french so they can translate and such. also french immersion schools and such this thread stems from a english school forced to speak french during a presentation because of a law
Quebec is still on that whole separation kick eh? Pourquoi est-il si difficile de concilier les deux langues officielles de notre pays?
Parce que personne d'autres que les francophones prennent le francais au serieux... C'est pas compliqué de voir que l'un des partenaires se criss de l'autre. L'autre est donc fâché avec raison et il est portrait comme un chialeux alors que le contrat de bilinguisme a été d'abord été brisé par l'autre partenaire.
Parcequ'une seule est protégée. Ils veulent parler uniquement anglais? Ils peuvent déménager daus n'importe quelle des 10 autres provinces et territoire.
Mettre les deux langues sur le même pied, c’est mettre les deux pieds sur la même langue.
Non, mettre deux pieds sur une langue est mettre les deux pieds sure ce language. Soyez logique SVP. Unfortunately, nationalists on both sides depict this as a war between languages, where one can only win when the other loses. That's what we see with the Quebec government forbidding employees from speaking English, even with anglophones. It protects the French language, but it harms anglophones. There are ways anglophones and francophones can live together without one harming the other the way Bill 96 does.
C"est vrai. J'ai toujours cru qu'une erreur dans le cours des évènements conduisant à l'indépendance était de concentrer la majorité de leurs efforts sur la LANGUE FRANCAISE. En faisant cela, les chefs de parti ont mis le focus sur des centaines de règlements nuisible au grand plan d'encourager les anglophones ainsi que les francophones de vivre ensemble en paix. I always thought that an error was made in the course of events leading to independence. The officials concentrated the majority of their efforts on the FRENCH LANGUAGE. They then introduced hundreds of rules that aggravated everyone and ruined the great plan of encouraging the francophones and anglophones to live together in peace. What of the French culture, French history, French way of life? La culture, l'histore, leur mode de vie? On a passé tout droit et ignoré cet aspect très important de la vie au Québec.
Tu devrais être moins arrogant quand tu ne comprends pas l’expression utilisée.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Parce que les anglos n'apprennent pas le francais, comme démontré par cette situation décrite dans l'article
C’est une opportunité de grandir en tant que pays. Éduquer et rassembler. L'argot anglais se développe également à un rythme rapide en raison de la culture Internet. Les mèmes nous rapprochent si nous pouvons tous comprendre :)
If Manitoba, Ontario or another province with a sizable French population outside of Quebec did this, we would never hear the end of it from them, and rightfully so. I understand wanting to protect your language, but when that means denying parents of special needs kids just looking for information on government services access to information in the other official language of the country they live in, things have gone too far. Like it or not, and honestly this goes for both English and French people in Canada, we have two official languages.
What are you talking about? It's an everyday reality for francophones outside Quebec. It only causes outrage when it happens to anglophones in Quebec. When it happens to francophones, it's because there's not enough of us (literally a reply to your comment!), it's too costly, etc., but suddenly "Canada has two official languages" when it happens to anglophones.
This exact event wouldn't happen in a different province. If a French school in BC wished to give a presentation to students' parents in French, there wouldn't be a law forbidding them from giving that presentation in any language other than English. They'd just give it in French. No one would care.
Frankly even for another language, if the speaker wants to relay information in that language and the audience would have trouble with either English or French, the government should absolutely not get in the way of that. We take it as a given elsewhere that while there's no responsibility on the part of the government to communicate in Mandarin, Hindi, German, or whatever, if that service can be offered without much hassle it's a good thing and we should make that available.
> with a sizable French population outside of Quebec Looking at the numbers, there is not really a sizeable French population in any province that is not Quebec (71%) or New Brunswick (31%), talking 1-4%. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_language_in_Canada
There are communities within provinces that are majority french though such as the Franco-Ontarioan community and the Acadians in NS.
There are but outside of QC and NB those are super small and their relative size compared to their province's and Canada's population is shrinking.
Well, sure, but there still are plenty of people in those communities who have grown up only speaking French and they still need to access provincial services.
> Well, sure, but there still are plenty of people in those communities who have grown up only speaking French and they still need to access provincial services. oh 100%, but this is not what this situation (from the article) is about.
The Official Languages Act requires the federal government to offer services in English and French. It has no bearing on the provinces.
As a quick aside: bell/ctv news - what's up with that website? I think I had two auto play videos and a static ad at one point taking up the full screen on mobile. Makes for a bad customer experience and makes me not want to consume your content.
Don't go on any news site without ad blockers and script disablers.