I’m not frothing at the mouth, personally. I speak enough French that if the reverse situation were encountered I could get by. I’m pretty sure that any francophone could also get by in my linked situation.
But the problem is that the federal government enacted a law. The federal government chose the boundaries and then the municipal, small-town folks were expected to comply. In the Pakenham case the lady in question had been the Postmistress for decades. Then the feds come along and said “Sorry. You’re not qualified to do your job.”
And hey, I know it’s small beans. But these kinds of things happen, and if the shoe was on the other foot it would start to collectively leave a bad taste in your mouth.
I live on the boarder. My son is attending French immersion school, because it opens more doors for him as he enters the workforce.
I studied French in high school because I saw the benefit, and I was born in Scotland and grew up in southwestern Ontario where the only French they know is escargot and or d’oeuvres.
I didn’t say a single thing about the provisions of Bill 101 when it comes to the language of the workplace.
That is a matter of interest to the business, not me. And of course, the statement that “90% of the population speaks French” quite absurdly ignores the fact that linguistic minorities congregate.
In parts of Markham you will find signs that are entirely in Chinese, despite the fact that far more than 90% of Ontarians cannot read Chinese. Are they alienating 90% of their clientele - or d’ya think maybe they’re appealing to their clientele?
Given that Quebec has Future Shop and Best Buy and Home Depot and Burger King and Scores and… need I go on? I don’t think you’d have many problems calling your restaurant Rick’s Place. You may have to post signage in French though.
Sure. So can you in Quebec.
Quebec anglophones have no problems getting served in their language, both by private businesses and by the government. In fact, in many places they can live in English only. (Try living in French only in Ontario, in other places than a few small towns.) They’re not threatened by assimilation. They have access to a public education system in their language up to and including the university level.
I’m not sure what your question is. They’re in better shape by any criterion you may choose. Do you really doubt this, or are you just debating for the sake of debating?
Why would I care? If I lived in Ontario perhaps I’d have some grounds to question the policy. And if it’s a law like Quebec’s, the government would only respond to citizen complaints and then work with the business owners to help them be compliant, which would make it quite harmless.
What do you mean? You don’t think policies are good just because they’re popular? You’re probably right, but you need a compelling argument if you’re to tell people that a policy they consider vital is actually wrong.
I guess I’m different in that I have some interest in, and an opinion on, about public policy concerning the freedom of expression throughout my country, not just my province of residence. I want Canadians to be free to lives their lives as they see fit. I’m not gay, but I support the freedom to enter into gay marriages. I’m not black, but racial profiling offends me all the same.
But we’re getting off topic. I am simply trying to illustrate that you’re conflating opposition to a matter of free speech versus opposition to the simple existence of the French language and its common predominance in Quebec. Many people, like myself, would prefer to see the restrictive aspects of Bill 101 reversed, but don’t see anything wrong with the fact that most people in Quebec speak French or conduct their personal lives and business in French. You seem to assume, again and again, that opposition to the fomer indicates some sort of antipathy to the latter.
I can see why they, in Quebec, would want to protect their culture: their language. Gaelic is all but eliminated in the UK, except that Wales has retained their language by maintaining signage. This has helped keep their language still alive. I’m not sure what government mandates are in effect though.
More of a GQ question really, but this thread is up and running: are Canadian federal elections required to be held on Mondays? Or is it just a convention?
You’d be astonished how seldom lines like ‘Je mange l’odeur de tes cuisses.’ or ‘Où dois-je naturaliser le pétrole de mon cœur?’ come up in everyday conversation… (Both actual lines from ‘Le Vampire et la nymphomane’, music by Serge Provost to a text by Claude Gauvreau.)
Here’s a good reason to root for a minority result:
If there’s a majority, because of fixed election laws, every following election will occur during the playoffs from now until there’s another minority (or by some strange chance, loss of confidence).
The conservatives have filed a complaint about an advance polling station at University of Guelph, claiming there was partisan material present. If their complaint is upheld, about 700 votes would be thrown out.
In a riding that is currently polling at 32.0% for the Conservatives, 35.5% for the Liberals, I can see their concern over 700 votes that, owing to the nature of the vote mob, are not likely to be for the Conservatives. However, trying to take the ballot box, as the local candidate’s communications director is alleged to have done, is right out. I’ll be interested to see how this plays out.
There was a story yesterday of Liberal supporters from a particular riding getting phone calls from a call centre in North Dakota. The Liberal candidate called it a classic attempt to suppress votes.
There was a riding in the maritimes where voters received phone calls exhorting them to vote for the NDP candidate … who had dropped out of the race. :dubious:
Search about on the SDMB for telemarketing threads. I expect that you will find a great deal of hostility directed at telemarketing. Want to get people to vote against you? Subject them to telemarketing on your behalf.
