I understand it now as an adult, I really do. In fact, I love Montreal more than ever on my visits there.
But it was devastating to the Anglo-Quebec community I used to belong to. All my family, all my friends, they all moved away or died. There’s hardly a trace of the the vibrant culture we Anglophones once had in Montreal.
The language police have a $24million budget, and this is just the latest but, hardly the most ridiculous, stunt they’ve pulled. I’m not trying to make anything of it, other than to offer it up for people to decide if that’s considered freedom.
Keep on Rockin’ in the Free World.
And you seem to see a government organization designed to restrict freedom of expression, while oppressing minorities, as a good thing. Rock on indeed.
Probably deserves its own thread, but I’m not motivated enough to create one.
All I’m saying is that I respect the Quebecois to maintain and preserve their language and culture. It shouldn’t come at the oppression of other peoples, and I don’t think it does.
I’m not supporting Quebec separatism, which is a whole other kettle of fish, I’m just supporting their right to preserve their language in a sea of anglophones and Anglo-culture. I understand what their motives are and I support them.
Heck, I live in Quebec and all I see is a bunch of nuisances hampering honest people just trying to make a living.
The company my girlfriend works for is gearing up for a number of time-wasting hoop-jumps that will hopefully satisfy the language cops, to be immediately discarded after they leave.
You might argue that it is oppression in a good cause or that the amount of oppression is minimal but not being able to do business in the language of my choice is oppression.
I totally understand the historical backdrop relating to how Quebec manages their language laws but I cannot respect it. If you wish to maintain your language and culture but not oppress others then do so by educating your youth. Instill a sense of pride into them regarding their culture. Do business with companies that operate in the language of your choice and boycott those who don’t. Do not, through force of law, require that others adhere to your preferences and then say that it is not oppression.
This would not be a problem if they only sold Franco-American pasta.
[rd]Give my regards to Mrs. Boyardee.[/rd]
In terms of a provincial government, $24 million is operating on a shoestring. I’m surprised they actually have people in the field at all. Most departments could chew through $24 million just coming up with a design for the stationery.
The thing about the so-called Language Police is that they do not go looking for infractions. They respond to complaints, investigating and recommanding corrections. And since the complaints are anonymous, I wouldn’t be surprised if many of them are from competitors or disgruntled employees of the businesses cited.
So, how do you feel about civil rights legislation that requires businesses to provide the same service to all individuals regardless of race. Since that interferes with the ability of business-owners to run their businesses as they see fit, are they oppressive?
Yes. That is oppressive. You can, as I said, make the argument that the oppression is in a good cause but it is still oppression.
My own feeling is that using the coersive power of the state against individuals is somewhat more justifiable when it is used to protect minorities against discrimination by the majority, then when it is used by the majority to enforce conformity on minorities.
Define “oppressive.”
It’s certainly coercion. The question is what defines appropriate government coercion. The government uses coercion to prevent you from robbing my home, that seems okay to me. Government uses coercion to prevent me from printing my own $20 bills, which also seems okay to me.
Quebec’s language laws are, let’s be honest, xenophobic and stupid, and are largely supported by xenophobes. The retention of Quebec’s French character could be accomplished without them; linguistic minorities flourish throughout the world without such stupidities. That said, the day to day impact of them is really almost nonexistent; stories like the Italian restaurant’s menu are noteworthy because they are unusual, not because they’re common. There are a thousand laws and regulations on the books in any jurisdiction that poke and pry at one’s freedom. In Ontario they’re forcing you to not buy regular light bulbs anymore. It’s an imbecilic law and it puts a tiny little dent in my freedom, but does that mean this isn’t a free country anymore? Of course not; freedom’s a relative concept, and as the world goes, Canada is one of the freest places that has ever existed in human history.
The latter part really goes without question, I think. Anyone can cherry-pick particular laws and policies they don’t agree with, or that are even objectively stupid and coercive, and that does not thereby mean that this jurisdiction is “unfree” in the larger picture. In this world, by any measure, anywhere in Canada (including Quebec with its language laws) is “free”, comparatively speaking.
Doesn’t mean we can’t bitch and complain about those bits we fnd stupid and coercive of course, because bitching is what people do. 
There’s probably a lot of truth in that statement.
Exactly.
It’s free as we, and the rest of world define it. But as with most things different cultures very in which freedoms trump others. We quite value gun laws and the freedom to live in a society where every person is not potentially armed. That’s considered oppression in the US.
We value not giving a free pass to hateful speech. And our diversity has worked to our benefit in part, we enacted laws to make sure minorities are protected from oppression. We value their insured freedoms, over the blind fear of government power.
In short, yes, a free nation, in the values which reflects our distinct culture.
The day to day impact of the language laws is small now, because they people who were greatly affected by them left many years ago. Among others these were people such as immigrants who wanted their children to go to English schools but could not do so any longer and people who didn’t speak French well enough to continue to move upward in their careers. There was a reason there was huge outflow of Anglophones and Allophones in the late 70s and early 80s, of which I am one.
I was in school when the first language laws were enacted, regarding who was allowed to attend English language schools. We all thought it was incredibly oppressive. Half my classmates were the children of immigrants.
The problem with Canadian ISPs (at least the big boys, Rogers and Bell) isn’t the speed, it is the caps. They limit how much people can download each month, and the limits are quite small, and the overage charges are very high.
For example, even the most expensive monthly plan from Rogers has a limit of 500GB, and that will cost you $225.99 a month. The middle plan, a mere $64.99 a month, allows you 120GB.
There is no good reason for this, beyond they can