French in Quebec will always be threatened by English. It is mathematical, geographical, economic, media, demographic.
Posted at 5:00 a.m.
But according to the authors of Bill 96, it seems that it is threatened by “the English”, personally.
As if, through a game of communicating vessels, each time we limit a right of Anglophones, any one, we improve the protection of French.
To what extent should services in English be restricted in Quebec to protect French? To read some surly columns recently, we can never go far enough, let alone too far. Because, you see, “our” English speakers (note the possessive adjective) constitute “the best treated minority in the world”. As a result, any protests about their “rights” are put on the shelf of spoiled brat’s lamentations. Anglophone rights organizations are automatically ridiculed. Anglo extremists are quoted emphatically in the media to better show the unreasonableness of their position.
But we are no longer in the early days of Bill 101, where the fundamental orientations were taken: compulsory French school for immigrants, francization of workplaces, posting, etc.
Bill 96, if it is justified on the merits, contains a series of new rules quite doubtful as to their effectiveness, but which certainly announce a series of bureaucratic hassles.
How does French win because an employee of the Bar, or of the College of Physicians, or of another professional order, would no longer have the right to speak to an English-speaking lawyer or doctor to resolve a problem technique?
The bill is full of these seemingly innocuous little things, which will just create more regulatory meanness, and no protection at all for French.
I have always believed that the Court of Appeal, the highest court in Quebec, should translate its judgments rendered in English into French. But imposing the filing of a translation “immediately and without delay” for any final decision or of interest to the public of all courts does not hold water. (The author of the expression “immediately and without delay” must be easy to recognize in Quebec with his suspenders and his belt, since it is hard to imagine how something can happen “immediately”, but with delay.)
Several decisions are rendered in an emergency and affect the freedom of individuals: bail in a criminal case, forced psychiatric treatment, child custody, placement in youth protection, etc. A decision targeting an English-speaking litigant should therefore wait for an “immediate and without delay” French translation provided by the court. This would inevitably create delays and do absolutely nothing for the promotion of French.
Obtaining health services in English, protected by law, becomes subject to a kind of documentary genealogical proof, so to speak: are you one of “our” Anglos, for whom this is tolerated, or a vile free rider linguistic?
For several administrative documents, English will be banned. The bureaucratic hassles to come for a whole series of daily acts are easy to see coming.
But blah, that’s nothing compared to the Francophones of Saskatchewan, so what are we complaining about?
Since Simon Jolin-Barrette’s favorite constitutional article is the notwithstanding clause, this law obviously includes it. Including protection against unreasonable searches and searches. This means that the search powers of the Office for the Protection of the French Language would be less defined than those of the police when investigating a crime.
As soon as this project becomes law, it will be challenged in court. It is part of the project: to show that the courts interfere with “parliamentary supremacy”. Just to screw up the politico-linguistic mess a little more, by exciting the ultras on each side.
McGill University and Dawson College, two excellent establishments run… by Francophones, have now become symbols of the threat to French.
Instead of boasting of their successes, of appropriating them, we deplore their higher funding. Instead of fighting for better funding for French-speaking higher education, where the promotion of French should come first, the nationalist neoconservatives are mobilizing public opinion against Anglo universities and CEGEPs, as in the good years of the RIN, in the 1960s.
The Legault government has thus canceled a magnificent and important Dawson expansion project, long in the pipeline, after having authorized it. He could have taken the opportunity to announce a plan for the others. But no, the pressure had become too strong in this declining nationalist right. Canceled.
The French won what?
On Friday, François Legault and Paul St-Pierre-Plamondon announced that they would not participate in the debate in English during the election campaign. The first pretext is the lack of time. The second – perhaps to atone for his McGill degree – refuses because French is the official language of Quebec. So there won’t be any.
Nothing to call António Guterres, I know.
But all that put together creates an atmosphere of hostility that nothing justifies.
French is doing quite well in Quebec. If in Montreal it is declining, it is because Francophones are settling mainly in the suburbs. And that immigrants are settling massively in the city. Except that the immigrants, chosen by Quebec, are either French-speaking, or else now overwhelmingly French-speaking or in the process of being so, in particular thanks to compulsory education in French.
It is a success that we forget to celebrate. It’s easier to count the number of times a clerk has approached you in English or said “hello, hey “.
The English speakers I know don’t look like the media cartoon. They are not railroad presidents or bankers. They are not that cliché of angryphones. They are bilingual (the most bilingual people in Canada, with French New Brunswickers at around 70%, compared to 40% for French speakers in Quebec).
They are deeply attached to Montreal. Montreal (need we really say it?) wouldn’t be Montreal without them. They have the taste of being Quebecois if it is allowed, not just tolerated…
Those I know are not nostalgic for the 1960s, and their demonstrations are not those of their grandparents, who often refused Bill 101 outright. They believe in the need to protect French.
But they are tired of being sent the message that they are an insolent historical residue that we endure as long as it does not exist too loudly. That their very presence puts French in danger.
They’re mostly sad, actually. And they are right.