brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (12/20/88)
The decision to use the famous notwithstanding clause to me marks one of the worst events in Canadian political history. I think most people don't like the fact that the clause is there, but I had always held the hope that, like many other aspects of the law, it would never be used -- that no province would dare to be the first to use it to remove fundamental rights. Today, this hope is dashed. You may call this a 'slippery-slope' argument, but I believe that this precedent will make it much easier for other violations of the chater to be entrenched in law. The sign law was stupid and the courts agreed. You should be able to have a sign in Japanese, Swahili or rot13 code if you want to. Certainly in one of Canada's official languages. We should scrap Meech Lake. A province that would do this over something as trivial as the control of signs deserves no place in the constitution of this country. That's how strongly I feel about this. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
36_5130@uwovax.uwo.ca (Kinch) (12/20/88)
In article <2521@looking.UUCP>, brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: > The decision to use the famous notwithstanding clause to me marks one of > the worst events in Canadian political history. This statement bares repeating! > Today, this hope is dashed. You may call this a 'slippery-slope' argument, > but I believe that this precedent will make it much easier for other > violations of the chater to be entrenched in law. Indeed! I would have put money down (though not alot) that NO government would have the guts to use this very disgusting clause. Although I agree with the courts ruling I would have been quite willing to go along with it if it had been otherwise. That is what our courts and judicial system is for! By using this damn clause Bourassa has shown his contempt for the whole system! > > The sign law was stupid and the courts agreed. You should be able to > have a sign in Japanese, Swahili or rot13 code if you want to. Certainly > in one of Canada's official languages. > I just wonder how they would feel if Ontario said that English only signs were allowed outside. While the rest of the country is (slowly) becomming bilingual (or at least accepting French more) Quebec thumbs its collective nose at us. I think that they have done themselves NO favours with this unprecedented move! > We should scrap Meech Lake. We should have anyway! > A province that would do this over something > as trivial as the control of signs deserves no place in the constitution > of this country. That's how strongly I feel about this. > -- I can't agree with this, Quebec deserves a place. An EQUAL place as the rest of the provinces have! Unfortunatly they want a bigger piece than any other, this is unacceptable! > Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 Dave Kinchlea Kinch@uwovax.uwo.ca
gilles@alberta.UUCP (Gilles Simon Dionne) (12/20/88)
In article <2521@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >The decision to use the famous notwithstanding clause to me marks one of >the worst events in Canadian political history. > > >The sign law was stupid and the courts agreed. You should be able to >have a sign in Japanese, Swahili or rot13 code if you want to. Certainly >in one of Canada's official languages. > >Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 I don't want to start a flame war over this( I'm not even sure if I support Bourrassa's action concerning this ) but ,let me ask you Brad, how would you feel if half the signs in downtown Toronto(or Kitchener-Waterloo) were in Swahili only? Would you not be bothered by the fact that the merchants didn't have the decency to advertise in your language(English)? Before Bill 101 that problem existed in Montreal. I know you can always avoid buying in those stores to show your disapproval, but if there are a large proportion of the available ones, you may not have the choice. Now Bill 101 may have been going overboard as far as French only signs were concerned, but this is what it was reacting to... Gilles
freedman@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Daniel Freedman) (12/20/88)
In article <560@cavell.UUCP>, gilles@alberta.UUCP (Gilles Simon Dionne) writes: > ...Would you not be bothered by the fact that the > merchants didn't have the decency to advertise in your language(English)? Have you ever been to a REAL Chinese restaurant in Chinatown in Calgary? Although much of the menu is written in English, much of it is in Chinese only. Often times, the staff don't speak very good English, and you have to stumble along with words like "noodle", "pork", etc. As far as I'm concerned, this is all part of the fun of eating in Chinatown. I have lived in Britain, and travelled to Europe. In many places in Europe (ie: away from the tourist traps), the people *dont* speak English. You have to get along, experiencing the culture of the people in the land you are in. Now, when I look at my box of cereal, it already has both English and French on it, so Canada already has some provision for making sure that at least some things are communicated in both official languages. Why would merchants in Quebec actively *not* communicate in French if they have a French clientele? I guess some of them could be being bloody-minded, but that kind of thinking doesn't make for good business. So, where there is a predominantly French speaking customer base, I would presume that merchants communicate in French (possibly also in English). On the other hand, if you are a French person living in a mostly English-speaking town, you should expect to see a lot of English and not a lot of French. The same goes for English people in French towns, or either kind of people living in Chinatown! Finally, who is this bill trying to protect? The English speaking people presumably are not being protected (although clearly they are being affected). The French merchants can only possibly be being protected from themselves, since if they really wanted to continue speaking French, presumably they would (and yes, maybe they would learn English too, so that they could attract English customers). If there really is a call for things being communicated in French, presumably both English and French speaking merchants would try to attract business by communicating in French (again, possibly as well as English). So that leaves the French speaking consumer. Are there not enough French speaking consumers to be attractive to businesses in French speaking communities? In the same way that if people care about Canadian industries, they buy Canadian products, people who are concerned about having French survive as a language will speak French out of choice. And because of this, merchants interested in keeping their business will make French available as a language of communication. I think that French can only die out if the French speaking people stop using it. I think that Bill 101 is an attempt by some people to force others to use a language that they don't want to use, since if they did want to use it, the bill would be unnecessary. Finally, I think that living in Calgary, I am an aweful long way away from the situation, and am possibly missing some vital link which allows me to see why Quebec wants to infringe on people's basic rights. Would somebody please call me an idiot, and at the same time explain to me what it is that makes people in Quebec feel this way? However, if you want to call me an idiot, then don't talk to me about historical prejudice, deep feelings by both parties on unrelated issues, or about people wanting to tell other people what's good for them. By all means tell me about those things if they are relevant, but don't call me an idiot if those are the things that I have "missed". If it turns out that those are the real problems, and that Bill 101 is just a symptom, then perhaps we should directly discuss those problems rather than trying to justify Bill 101 in terms of language or cultural issues. Dan Freedman University of Calgary Computer Science Department 2500 University Drive N.W. freedman@cpsc.UCalgary.CA Calgary, Alberta, T2N 1N4 ...!alberta!calgary!freedman
36_5130@uwovax.uwo.ca (Kinch) (12/20/88)
In article <560@cavell.UUCP>, gilles@alberta.UUCP (Gilles Simon Dionne) writes: > In article <2521@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: > how > would you feel if half the signs in downtown Toronto(or Kitchener-Waterloo) > were in Swahili only? Would you not be bothered by the fact that the > merchants didn't have the decency to advertise in your language(English)? > > Gilles My point (and no my name aint Brad) is that the above case simply WOULD NOT BOTHER ME ONE BIT! I have been in Chinatown (Spadina St) in Toronto, and there is very little English there. Of course there are very few English speaking residents so it seems quite appropriate. If a buisness wants to use Swahili, French, German or even Pig Latin that is just FINE. Freedom means FREEDOM! Kinch
grant@looking.UUCP (Grant Robinson) (12/21/88)
In article <560@cavell.UUCP> gilles@cavell.UUCP (Gilles Simon Dionne) writes: >how >would you feel if half the signs in downtown Toronto(or Kitchener-Waterloo) >were in Swahili only? As a citizen of a free country, I feel I would be able to freely choose whether or not to shop at any given establishment, regardless of the language of its signs. Perhaps they prefer to cater to a Swahili clientele, and it is within their rights to do so. >Would you not be bothered by the fact that the >merchants didn't have the decency to advertise in your language(English)? I don't think decency enters into this. As mentioned above, perhaps it is not you that they are attempting to address with their signs. If you wish to take offence at this, that is your right. If you feel strongly enough that the whole community should cater to your needs, then I suggest that you start looking for such a community. (no hard feelings) -- grant
evan@telly.UUCP (Evan Leibovitch) (12/21/88)
In article <560@cavell.UUCP> gilles@cavell.UUCP (Gilles Simon Dionne) writes: >In article <2521@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >>The decision to use the famous notwithstanding clause to me marks one of >>the worst events in Canadian political history. >>[...] > >how would you feel if half the signs in downtown Toronto (or Kitchener) >were in Swahili only? Would you not be bothered by the fact that the >merchants didn't have the decency to advertise in your language(English)? As I recall, the court said that Quebec had the power to force French on signs, it just didn't have the right to prohibit other languages. Bourassa had an option of amending the law to allow muiltilingual signs, while forcing French to be predominant. So your analogy doesn't hold. Besides, there are significant pockets of Toronto where signs are not in English (Spadina-Dundas, St. Clair-Dufferin, Danforth-Pape), and it doesn't bother me at all. >Before Bill 101 that problem existed in Montreal. I know you can always avoid >buying in those stores to show your disapproval, but if there are a large >proportion of the available ones, you may not have the choice. Oh, please. A whole economy changed in the 70s as francophone businesses (Provigo, Dupuis Freres, etc.) sprang up to take business away from stores who insulted French-speaking customers. The others had to respond or they would not be able to earn a profit in Quebec. >have been going overboard as far as >French only signs were concerned, but this is what it was reacting to... And in the process, made itself somewhat more of a closed-mided police state, complete with 'culture police'. My only good news out of this is that it scuttles Meech Lake, which I always hated for other reasons. -- Evan Leibovitch, SA of System Telly "I am most concerned that Located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario, Canada nobody will remember me evan@telly.on.ca -or- uunet!attcan!telly!evan when I am dead" - Anon.
sjl@myrias.UUCP (Stuart Lomas) (12/21/88)
From article <560@cavell.UUCP>, by gilles@alberta.UUCP (Gilles Simon Dionne): > In article <2521@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >>The decision to use the famous notwithstanding clause to me marks one of >>the worst events in Canadian political history. >> >>The sign law was stupid and the courts agreed. You should be able to >>have a sign in Japanese, Swahili or rot13 code if you want to. Certainly >>in one of Canada's official languages. > > ... let me ask you Brad, how > would you feel if half the signs in downtown Toronto(or Kitchener-Waterloo) > were in Swahili only? Would you not be bothered by the fact that the > merchants didn't have the decency to advertise in your language(English)? > Before Bill 101 that problem existed in Montreal. Gilles has missed the point. The law Bourassa intends to maintain requires that: 1) Commercial signs must be in French, and 2) NO OTHER LANGUAGE MAY BE USED IN ADDITION TO FRENCH Point 1 is not unreasonable, and the Supreme Court has ruled that it is within the rights of the Government of Quebec to have such a law. Point 2 violates both the Canadian and Quebec charters of rights, and by using the notwithstanding clause Bourassa is explicitly ignoring both of those charters. It is not the requirement for French that is causing the problem! Bourassa could have required French without violating the Charters. He could even have required that French appear first, and that it be twice as large. The problem is that he has disallowed every other language, and this is not acceptable to speakers of English, Spanish, Ukranian, Vietnamese, and every other language that we purport to encourage in Canada. C'est une chose d'etre fier. C'est une autre d'etre mechant. Stuart Lomas alberta!myrias!sjl
lamy@ai.toronto.edu (Jean-Francois Lamy) (12/21/88)
Il est effectivement triste de voir un gouvernement essentiellement affirmer que les chartes des Droits et Liberte's du Que'bec et du Canada ne valent gue`re plus que le papier sur lequel elles sont imprime'es. D'autant plus qu'il aurait e'te' parfaitement possible de proposer exactement le me^me amendement sans l'assortir d'une clause de'rogatoire, qui ne fait que tourner le fer dans la plaie. Et comme une majorite' de Que'becois francophones admettaient l'usage d'autres langues que le Franc,ais en affichage commercial tant que ce dernier restait pre'-e'minent, le choix de pre'server l'affichage unilingue francophone e'tait de'ja bien assez irritant pour le Canada anglais. Certains s'objectent a cette notion de pre'-e'minence du Franc,ais. Pas question pour moi de mettre en doute le droit et le devoir du Gouvernement du Que'bec de prote'ger et promouvoir l'usage du Franc,ais. L'argument qui veut que si la culture Franc,aise doit survivre elle doit le faire sans soutien le'gislatif ne re'siste pas a` l'examen. Si en 1988 neuf des dix e'missions de te'le' les plus e'coute'es sont des productions locales ce n'est certainement pas a` cause d'une loi forcant les spectateurs a` les e'couter; par contre l'image que les Que'be'cois ont d'eux-me^mes a change', et la loi 101 a eu son ro^le a` jouer dans cette affirmation. J'aurais espe're' que tout en conservant les aspects positifs de la loi 101 on ait pu admettre que le Que'bec avait change' suffisamment pour pouvoir se passer des clauses les plus irritantes de la loi. Malheureusement la notion que tout affaiblissement de la loi nous rame`nerait en 1965 semble avoir eu le dessus. Dommage, l'accord du Lac Meech semblait annoncer une e`re de relations plus agre'ables entre le Que'bec et le reste du Canada. Jean-Francois Lamy lamy@ai.utoronto.ca, uunet!ai.utoronto.ca!lamy AI Group, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4
clewis@ecicrl.UUCP (12/21/88)
In article <560@cavell.UUCP> gilles@cavell.UUCP (Gilles Simon Dionne) writes: >In article <2521@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >>The decision to use the famous notwithstanding clause to me marks one of >>the worst events in Canadian political history. Bears repeating yet again... >... but ,let me ask you Brad, how >would you feel if half the signs in downtown Toronto(or Kitchener-Waterloo) >were in Swahili only? Impossible - half the signs in downtown Toronto are Greek or Italian or Cantonese or Vietnamese already. I even patronize some of stores being advertised. Nor do I feel that my "Anglais" culture is leaking. No, the constitution is about *equality* - no special status for anyone. -- Chris Lewis, Markham, Ontario, Canada {uunet!attcan,utgpu,yunexus,utzoo}!lsuc!ecicrl!clewis Ferret Mailing list: ...!lsuc!gate!eci386!ferret-request (or lsuc!gate!eci386!clewis or lsuc!clewis)
derome@ai.toronto.edu (Philippe Derome) (12/21/88)
In article <726@myrias.UUCP> sjl@myrias.UUCP (Stuart Lomas) writes: > 1) Commercial signs must be in French, and > 2) NO OTHER LANGUAGE MAY BE USED IN ADDITION TO FRENCH > >Point 1 is not unreasonable, and the Supreme Court has ruled that it is within >the rights of the Government of Quebec to have such a law. > >Point 2 violates both the Canadian and Quebec charters of rights, and by using >the notwithstanding clause Bourassa is explicitly ignoring both of those >charters. > Your point #2 is either false or ambigous or not perfectly clear. Other language may be used, but inside the shop; imagine big bilingual signs just behind a very transparent window at the front door, would not that be close enough to bilingual signs? I am certain that you will say ``No way'' and be outraged, but to me the distinction is not large. I do understand your complaints about the complaints concerning the notwithdtanding clause. Philippe Derome
clarke@csri.toronto.edu (Jim Clarke) (12/21/88)
In article <165@ecicrl.UUCP> clewis@ecicrl.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes: > ... >Impossible - half the signs in downtown Toronto are Greek or Italian or >Cantonese or Vietnamese already. > >I even patronize some of stores being advertised. > >Nor do I feel that my "Anglais" culture is leaking. Let's show a little imagination here. There's no way "English culture" could possibly be threatened by any other, for at least the next several decades. It's very easy to be tolerant of other languages on signs in Toronto. It wouldn't be so easy if the other language on the signs had the same influence compared with ours as English does compared with French. No, I don't think French is going to vanish in Quebec; after all, it's survived about 80 years of British occupation, followed by 120 of minority status in Canada. But would you like to bet on the survival of French in Canada outside Quebec? compared with the likelihood English will survive inside Quebec? If I were Quebecois, I'd be concerned too, though I'd be optimistic. Disclaimers: (1) I still don't know what I think about Bourassa's new law; and (2) I don't read can.politics, only can.francais. -- Jim Clarke -- Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4 (416) 978-4058 BITNET,CSNET: clarke@csri.toronto.edu CDNNET: clarke@csri.toronto.cdn UUCP: {allegra,cornell,decvax,linus,utzoo}!utcsri!clarke
robert@sysint.UUCP (Robert Nelson) (12/22/88)
In article <2521@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >The decision to use the famous notwithstanding clause to me marks one of >the worst events in Canadian political history. I can think of a couple of other events just as bad: War measures act for the FLQ crisis Free Trade Agreement (;-) > >I think most people don't like the fact that the clause is there, but I >had always held the hope that, like many other aspects of the law, it >would never be used -- that no province would dare to be the first to >use it to remove fundamental rights. Quebec was the first to use it. The Parti Quebecois used it routinely when passing every law. I believe Saskatchewan was the first to specifically use it to pass an unconstitutional law. They used it to settle a public service strike. I think this is an even worse blow to charter, since there was no lofty excuse such as protecting the cultural identity of a province. It was used out of political expediency. > >Today, this hope is dashed. You may call this a 'slippery-slope' argument, >but I believe that this precedent will make it much easier for other >violations of the chater to be entrenched in law. > I think this was a rather naive hope. If you give politicians an easy way out they will take it. (As would most people, human nature being what it is). >The sign law was stupid and the courts agreed. You should be able to >have a sign in Japanese, Swahili or rot13 code if you want to. Certainly >in one of Canada's official languages. > No argument here. M. Bourassa has stated that while signs alone do not destroy the french fact of Quebec they are symbolic. The Quebecois believe that if the signs contain English everyone will speak English and Quebec will become another English province. In other words the decision was made because of peoples emotions, suspicions and paranoia. These are the sorts of things that a charter should prevent. I am sure that the people of Canada believed in 1942 that the Japanese- Canadians were a threat and the internment was justified. The charter would have been no more protection for them at that time then it is for the English Quebecers now. >We should scrap Meech Lake. A province that would do this over something >as trivial as the control of signs deserves no place in the constitution >of this country. That's how strongly I feel about this. I believe we should scrap the Meech Lake deal also, however, I felt this way before the Supreme court decision. >-- >Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 IMHO, the purpose of a charter of rights is to protect the rights of a minority against the wants of the majority. The politicians have used the internment of the Japanese as an example of why we needed one. However, a charter of rights which can be overridden by the majority is worse than none at all. It provides a false sense of security and removes the motivation to enact a real one. -- Robert B. Nelson Systems Interface Inc. VOICE: (613) 230-4103 560 Rochester St, 2nd Floor FAX: (613) 230-6928 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA K1S 5K2 UUCP: uunet!mnetor!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!sysint!robert
sanand@radha.UUCP (Sanand Patel) (12/22/88)
In article <88Dec20.222005est.38036@neat.ai.toronto.edu> lamy@ai.toronto.edu (Jean-Francois Lamy) writes: >Il est effectivement triste de voir un gouvernement essentiellement affirmer >que les chartes des Droits et Liberte's du Que'bec et du Canada ne valent >gue`re plus ....... > > ........ ccord du Lac Meech semblait annoncer une e`re de >relations plus agre'ables entre le Que'bec et le reste du Canada. > >Jean-Francois Lamy lamy@ai.utoronto.ca, uunet!ai.utoronto.ca!lamy >AI Group, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4 Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ... gimme a break. -- --- --- sanand@hub.toronto.edu --- UUCP: {lsuc,dciem}!radha!sanand --- 416-756-4100
frank@rsoft.UUCP (Frank I. Reiter) (12/23/88)
In article <560@cavell.UUCP> gilles@cavell.UUCP (Gilles Simon Dionne) writes: > > I don't want to start a flame war over this( I'm not even sure if I >support Bourrassa's action concerning this ) but ,let me ask you Brad, how >would you feel if half the signs in downtown Toronto(or Kitchener-Waterloo) >were in Swahili only? Would you not be bothered by the fact that the >merchants didn't have the decency to advertise in your language(English)? I could understand a law that demanded that all Swahili signs also be posted in English or French, but I cannot agree with a law that prohibits Swahili signs altogether. I must agree with Braqd, this is a very sad thing for Canada. -- *=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=* Frank I. Reiter \ / UUCP: {uunet,ubc-cs}!van-bc!rsoft!frank Langley, British Columbia / \ BBS: Mind Link @ (604)533-2312 *=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) (12/23/88)
In article <10@rsoft.UUCP> frank@rsoft.UUCP (Frank I. Reiter) writes: >In article <560@cavell.UUCP> gilles@cavell.UUCP (Gilles Simon Dionne) writes: >> >>were in Swahili only? Would you not be bothered by the fact that the >>merchants didn't have the decency to advertise in your language(English)? I havn't seen any signs in swahili lately, but when I go downtown there's lots of stores with signs in Chinese, a few Italian etc. Doesn't bother me one bit. >I could understand a law that demanded that all Swahili signs also be posted >in English or French, but I cannot agree with a law that prohibits Swahili >signs altogether. I must agree with Braqd, this is a very sad thing for >Canada. I agree. What I'd like to know is whether it would be possible to challenge the validity of the notwithstanding clause in the supreme court. Anybody like to comment. Failing that, I would like to propose that all other nine provinces pass laws prohibiting the use of French on exterior signs until such time as the Quebec law is withdrawn. Not the use of Chinese, Italian, Swahili, just French. Also, I would like to propose that Federal civil servants be required to use only English in their jobs if they are outside of Quebec. Again you can tie this to withdrawal of the Quebec law. -- Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca {ubc-cs,uunet}!van-bc!sl Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532
gordan@maccs.McMaster.CA (gordan) (12/23/88)
In article <165@ecicrl.UUCP> clewis@ecicrl.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes: > >Impossible - half the signs in downtown Toronto are Greek or Italian or >Cantonese or Vietnamese already. > >I even patronize some of stores being advertised. > >Nor do I feel that my "Anglais" culture is leaking. There have been a lot of posts along these lines. Something like: "Well once I saw a Greek-only sign on some store and the other day I was in a Chinese restaurant and the menus were all in Chinese but it was a fascinating experience and I didn't feel my English heritage was the least bit threatened no sir so what's the problem with these silly French people in Quebec whining all the time?" Yes, there are lots of Chinese-only signs in Chinatown, but if you want to make a valid comparison, you would have to imagine half of Metro Toronto being Cantonese-speaking (say, everything west of Yonge). You would further have to imagine the rest of the country and the continent (other than roughly six million people in southern Ontario) as being Cantonese-speaking. Furthermore, Cantonese would be the worldwide language of commerce and popular culture. Now you have a valid comparison. What would the English-speaking majority of the tiny enclave of southern Ontario do under such circumstances? Hard to say.
gordan@maccs.McMaster.CA (gordan) (12/23/88)
In article <2521@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: > >We should scrap Meech Lake. A province that would do this over something >as trivial as the control of signs deserves no place in the constitution >of this country. That's how strongly I feel about this. Well, perhaps you're exalting the constitution a little too much here. The notwithstanding clause is no historical accident -- it is an integral part of the constitution. Make no mistake -- if there had been no notwithstanding clause, our fundamental charter would still be the BNA Act. Ironically, it was English-speaking premiers like Peter Lougheed and Sterling Lyon who withheld their approval for patriation and insisted on such a clause over Trudeau's objections. Is it Meech Lake that is fundamentally flawed or is it the Constitution itself?
gordan@maccs.McMaster.CA (gordan) (12/23/88)
In article <2052@van-bc.UUCP> sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) writes: > >I agree. What I'd like to know is whether it would be possible to challenge >the validity of the notwithstanding clause in the supreme court. Anybody >like to comment. Declare the Constitution itself to be unconstitutional? Wow, what a concept. >Also, I would like to propose that Federal civil servants be required to >use only English in their jobs if they are outside of Quebec. Again you can >tie this to withdrawal of the Quebec law. Why? They're not required to use French only in Quebec. Federal institutions do not fall under provincial jurisdiction anyway: e.g., post offices and other federal buildings in Quebec have always had bilingual signs.
36_5130@uwovax.uwo.ca (Kinch) (12/23/88)
In article <88Dec21.094859est.38036@neat.ai.toronto.edu>, derome@ai.toronto.edu (Philippe Derome) writes: > In article <726@myrias.UUCP> sjl@myrias.UUCP (Stuart Lomas) writes: >> 1) Commercial signs must be in French, and >> 2) NO OTHER LANGUAGE MAY BE USED IN ADDITION TO FRENCH > Your point #2 is either false or ambigous or not perfectly clear. > Other language may be used, but inside the shop; imagine big > bilingual signs just behind a very transparent window at the front door, > would not that be close enough to bilingual signs? I am certain that > you will say ``No way'' and be outraged, but to me the distinction > is not large. As I understand the bill/law this would NOT be acceptable. The signs inside must not be visible to the outside! Otherwise you are correct, in both assertions. It would be 'close enough to bilingual signs' and most people would still be outraged! > > I do understand your complaints about the complaints concerning > the notwithdtanding clause. My complaints are that having a clause that can override the charter of rights makes the charter of rights completely useless. Either they are rights or they are not, the notwithstanding allows them to be non-rights! > > Philippe Derome Dave Kinchlea
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (12/24/88)
1) People have been providing examples of non-English areas of Toronto because the exact question, "What would you do if they had sections of Toronto (or Kitchener) without English signs?" You can't complain if people ask that question. 2) It doesn't matter one whit that the comparison isn't valid. That English is not threatened while French is. It wouldn't matter of French or English were about to be utterly destroyed, and you had 100% incontravertable proof that a sign law would save the day. The preservation of cultural elements and icons is *never* a grounds for infringement of the rights of individuals to say and print what they want. The whole *point* of freedom of expression is to protect forms of expression that go against the culture and main endanger it. That's why freedom of expression is in the constitution. Unfortunately, our constitutions is a wimp constitution, with that NW clause, but it was still written with the above intent in mind. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (12/24/88)
In article <1737@maccs.McMaster.CA> gordan@maccs.UUCP () writes: > >Is it Meech Lake that is fundamentally flawed or is it the Constitution >itself? Both. The constitution is fundamentally flawed. Meech Lake doesn't fix the big flaw, so it's flawed, too. Meech Lake makes constitutional concessions to Quebec to get them to sign. Now that we know what kind of concessions they really want, it's clear to me that they're not worth giving. No province deserves a special place in the constitution. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
dave@onfcanim.UUCP (Dave Martindale) (12/28/88)
In article <2052@van-bc.UUCP> sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) writes: > >Failing that, I would like to propose that all other nine provinces pass laws >prohibiting the use of French on exterior signs until such time as the >Quebec law is withdrawn. Not the use of Chinese, Italian, Swahili, just >French. This is a terrible idea. First, it's a very bad idea to punish one group for what someone else did. The francophones outside Quebec are full-fledged citizens of Canada and of whatever province they live in, and are entitled to all the rights of any other Canadian citizen and provincial resident, no matter what happens in Quebec. Second, I don't think it would have any effect on the faction in Quebec that wants to suppress English. They'd just say "let all francophones move to Quebec". Third, I don't see that you win anything in what is essentially a moral argument by demonstrating that you too can stoop to the level of the other side.
clewis@ecicrl.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (12/29/88)
In article <8812211552.AA18692@ellesmere.csri.toronto.edu> clarke@csri.toronto.edu (Jim Clarke) writes: >In article <165@ecicrl.UUCP> clewis@ecicrl.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes: >>Impossible - half the signs in downtown Toronto are Greek or Italian or >>Cantonese or Vietnamese already. >>I even patronize some of stores being advertised. >>Nor do I feel that my "Anglais" culture is leaking. I must admit I was being a little *cute*, but... >Let's show a little imagination here. There's no way "English culture" >could possibly be threatened by any other, for at least the next several >decades. Everybody seems seems to think that English culture in Canada is threatened - eg: CRTC Canadian content rules and all of the howling about the FTA... By this same reasoning, we should then institute a rule that *all* signs in Canada outside of Quebec should be unilingual English. I don't think you'd want that would you? > It's very easy to be tolerant of other languages on signs in >Toronto. It wouldn't be so easy if the other language on the signs had >the same influence compared with ours as English does compared with French. >No, I don't think French is going to vanish in Quebec; after all, it's >survived about 80 years of British occupation, followed by 120 of minority >status in Canada. But would you like to bet on the survival of French in >Canada outside Quebec? compared with the likelihood English will survive >inside Quebec? If I were Quebecois, I'd be concerned too, though I'd be >optimistic. When you consider that in Toronto the traditional "anglo" culture is no longer even 50% of the population you start seeing that the situation in Montreal and Toronto is almost the same. In Montreal the split is francophone-anglophone, in Toronto it's anglophone-everythingelse. The big difference is that in Toronto, most people speak English at least as a second language because it's the closest thing to being common amongst everyone and most of the neighborhoods are reasonably well mixed. In those neighborhoods where the concentrations of other cultures is very high, signs tend to be other than English. Why not in Montreal where few non-French signs would appear in predominantly French neighborhoods anyhow? As you say yourself, French isn't going to disappear - it's survived 200 years already. So what do they need this law now? And you express concern that francophones outside of Quebec need help more than inside - how does this law help them? I'm against giving any group, minority or majority, special rights by law. Because all they do in the end is create classes of citizenry and create divisions between various sub-cultures. Legislating division not unification. Which is the last thing we need. Why do the Quebecois insist on ghettoizing themselves? Most of Canada is defacto multi-cultural, in many cases not by legislation, but by how the country *works*. Why aren't we giving similar rights to Ukrainians? They're a pretty damn large minority. As far as I'm concerned they're a founding ethnic of this country. They've probably been abused worse than the Quebecois. And there are whole areas where the population is almost exclusively Ukrainian. Are they insisting on their own language on everything? No. Insisting upon publicly-funded Ukrainian education? Mostly no. Ditto Chinese, German, Italian, Dutch and many others. Thank god for that. -- Chris Lewis, Markham, Ontario, Canada {uunet!attcan,utgpu,yunexus,utzoo}!lsuc!ecicrl!clewis Ferret Mailing list: ...!lsuc!gate!eci386!ferret-request (or lsuc!gate!eci386!clewis or lsuc!clewis)
clewis@ecicrl.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (12/29/88)
In article <1736@maccs.McMaster.CA> gordan@maccs.UUCP () writes: >Yes, there are lots of Chinese-only signs in Chinatown, but if you want >to make a valid comparison, you would have to imagine half of Metro >Toronto being Cantonese-speaking (say, everything west of Yonge). You >would further have to imagine the rest of the country and the continent >(other than roughly six million people in southern Ontario) as being >Cantonese-speaking. Furthermore, Cantonese would be the worldwide >language of commerce and popular culture. >Now you have a valid comparison. >What would the English-speaking majority of the tiny enclave of southern >Ontario do under such circumstances? Hard to say. It's actually quite easy to say: By what right can the rest of the province dictate what language business is conducted in within Toronto? Or vice-versa? Especially if the majority within Toronto is something else? All you would be doing is forcing a few million people within Toronto to conduct business in a language other than they want to. You want to create animosity? Civil War? If such a thing were to happen, well, what could I *reasonably* do to *force* other people to "use" my culture? Absolutely *nothing*. Languages, cultures and ethnicity *evolve* damn it, and if one can't survive on it's own, sorry, but bye-bye. Even if it's my own. Everybody's going to should "that's easy for you to say! Yours won't." Does that deprive me of an opinion or invalidate one? Nope. Especially since there is just as little likelyhood that the French-Canadian culture will disappear. Or Canadian-Ukrainian, Canadian-Jewish or any other of the rest of the hyphenated cultures that are not disappearing either, even though they don't have the ability to create such laws. If Ukrainians, Poles, Jews, Chinese, Japanese etc. can keep their cultures alive without such laws, why can't the Quebecois? Are they afraid that without being forced nobody would think the Quebecois culture was worth keeping? They only sell themselves short... -- Chris Lewis, Markham, Ontario, Canada {uunet!attcan,utgpu,yunexus,utzoo}!lsuc!ecicrl!clewis Ferret Mailing list: ...!lsuc!gate!eci386!ferret-request (or lsuc!gate!eci386!clewis or lsuc!clewis)
dave@lsuc.uucp (David Sherman) (12/29/88)
En article <88Dec20.222005est.38036@neat.ai.toronto.edu> lamy@ai.toronto.edu (Jean-Francois Lamy) ecrit: >J'aurais espe're' que tout en conservant les aspects positifs de la loi 101 >on ait pu admettre que le Que'bec avait change' suffisamment pour pouvoir se >passer des clauses les plus irritantes de la loi. Moi aussi. Que croit-on -- le Quebec n'a pas change' beaucoup? Il me semble que c'est bien different maintenant. (Bon article, J-F!) David Sherman -- Moderator, mail.yiddish { uunet!attcan att pyramid!utai utzoo } !lsuc!dave
dave@lsuc.uucp (David Sherman) (12/29/88)
In article <2052@van-bc.UUCP> sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) writes: > What I'd like to know is whether it would be possible to challenge >the validity of the notwithstanding clause in the supreme court. Anybody >like to comment. Not Likely. Before 1982 there was a body of law in Canada called constitutional law. It still exists but has almost been forgotten with all of the Charter stuff. The only real issue was whether a particular piece of legislation was within provincial or federal jurisdiction under the BNA Act (now the Constitution Act, 1982). Essentially, Parliament is supreme, subject to the areas of provincial jurisdiction. Some provincial legislation was struck down in the past because it infringed on the exclusive federal jurisdiction in criminal law, for example. The federal Lord's Day Act, although allegedly enacted in the criminal sphere, was struck down because its real purpose is to legislate controls over business hours, which is within provincial jurisdiction. So the only way to strike down Quebec's language legislation would be to find that it infringed on an area of federal jurisdiction. Offhand, I don't see a good argument to make along those lines. There's also the old Bill of Rights, but it was basically emasculated by the Supreme Court of Canada long ago. The Court determined that the Bill is to be used only as an aid to interpretation, and if the legislation is clear and unambiguous, it doesn't apply. David Sherman Toronto -- Moderator, mail.yiddish { uunet!attcan att pyramid!utai utzoo } !lsuc!dave
freedman@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Daniel Freedman) (01/01/89)
Just out of interest, Why does Quebec not forbid English speaking people from moving to Quebec? It seems to me that this is in some sense a more reasonable policy than forcing people to use a language that they don't want to (they obviously dont want to, since if they did want to, they wouldn't need to be forced). Since the French have a majority in Quebec, and assuming that they have kids at the same speed (or greater) as the English in Quebec, then as time goes on the province would become more and more French-speaking, thus preserving the language and hence the culture. Dan Freedman University of Calgary Computer Science Department 2500 University Drive N.W. freedman@cpsc.UCalgary.CA Calgary, Alberta, T2N 1N4 ...!alberta!calgary!freedman
evan@telly.UUCP (Evan Leibovitch) (01/02/89)
In article <433@cs-spool.calgary.UUCP> freedman@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Daniel Freedman) writes: > >Why does Quebec not forbid English speaking people from moving to >Quebec? It seems to me that this is in some sense a more reasonable >policy than forcing people to use a language that they don't want to >(they obviously dont want to, since if they did want to, they wouldn't >need to be forced). As for now, Quebec cannot restrict people who are legally in Canada from living where they want. I beleieve one of the major goals behind the move for independence is the ability to control immigration from the rest of Canada. But that hasn't kept the province from using every tool at its disposal from making life hell for those who wish to be unilingual English. That is, unless they're tourists. Especially American tourists. I remember some kind of law that requires that children be taught in the French shool system. To be able to attend, say, Montreal's Protestant School Board, a child must have parents who can BOTH prove that their 'mother tongue' is English. As I recall, the intent of this law was to force Canadian immigrants settling in Quebec to go through French schooling (prior to the law, most had opted for English). I'm pretty sure this law is the reason why Montreal, which had a reputation for being the multi-cultural centre of Canada, has clearly lost that to Toronto in the last decade. The neighborhood of Duddy Kravitz has been all but wiped out. >Since the French have a majority in Quebec, and >assuming that they have kids at the same speed (or greater) as the >English in Quebec, then as time goes on the province would become more >and more French-speaking, thus preserving the language and hence the >culture. The threat, as I see it, is that the kids brought up French continue to see English as the language of power, maybe not in Quebec, but anywhere else on the continent. Radio stations in Quebec play as much Michael Jackson as those in Ontario. I have always found it somewhat frustrating that Quebec has never understood that English Canada is as paranoid about preserving local culture as it is. We should be working together to those goals (like a single CBC, not two factions that don't recognize each other's existence). Instead, I see a pattern of action which shows Quebec doesn't give a damn for co-operation. -- Evan Leibovitch, SA of System Telly "I am most concerned that Located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario, Canada nobody will remember me evan@telly.on.ca -or- uunet!attcan!telly!evan when I am dead" - Anon.
clewis@ecicrl.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (01/02/89)
In article <433@cs-spool.calgary.UUCP> freedman@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Daniel Freedman) writes: >Why does Quebec not forbid English speaking people from moving to >Quebec? It seems to me that this is in some sense a more reasonable >policy than forcing people to use a language that they don't want to >(they obviously dont want to, since if they did want to, they wouldn't >need to be forced). Since the French have a majority in Quebec, and >assuming that they have kids at the same speed (or greater) as the >English in Quebec, then as time goes on the province would become more >and more French-speaking, thus preserving the language and hence the >culture. It's called evangelism (sort of) - they want to import and convert people to French. Which is why Bill 101 also requires French education for everyone whose parents weren't educated in English. Eg: immigration - Quebec has wangled some sort of deal such that they get a slightly higher percentage of the immigrants coming into this country than they normally would, and these immigrants must join the French education system. (This is rather oversimplified, but essentially correct I think) Last I heard (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that the birthrate in Quebec is actually very *low* now. Which is particularly odd since historically their birthrate used to be considerably higher than English Canada. -- Chris Lewis, Markham, Ontario, Canada {uunet!attcan,utgpu,yunexus,utzoo}!lsuc!ecicrl!clewis Ferret Mailing list: ...!lsuc!gate!eci386!ferret-request (or lsuc!gate!eci386!clewis or lsuc!clewis)
dave@onfcanim.UUCP (Dave Martindale) (01/02/89)
In article <433@cs-spool.calgary.UUCP> freedman@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Daniel Freedman) writes: > >Just out of interest, > >Since the French have a majority in Quebec, and >assuming that they have kids at the same speed (or greater) as the >English in Quebec, then as time goes on the province would become more >and more French-speaking, thus preserving the language and hence the >culture. Part of the problem is that the birth rate in Quebec is among the lowest of any place in Canada or the U.S. If Quebec were to forbid immigration, or allow immigration only for people whose mother tongue was already French, its population (and economy) would steadily decline. So, Quebec needs immigrants, and the immigrants have to be convinced that they need to learn French, not English, to live and work. If the immigrants all learn English, francophones will eventually become a minority even in Quebec. (or so the reasoning goes - I can't vouch for its accuracy, but don't see anything obviously wrong).
derome@ai.toronto.edu (Philippe Derome) (01/02/89)
In article <168@ecicrl.UUCP> clewis@ecicrl.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes: >When you consider that in Toronto the traditional "anglo" culture is no >longer even 50% of the population you start seeing that the situation >in Montreal and Toronto is almost the same. In Montreal the split is >francophone-anglophone, in Toronto it's anglophone-everythingelse. >The big difference is that in Toronto, most people speak English at least >as a second language because it's the closest thing to being common amongst >everyone and most of the neighborhoods are reasonably well mixed. Bien qu'il soit vrai qu'il y a un nombre important d'immigrants a Toronto, la situation n'est pas comparable. Dans les librairies, les salles de cinema, les theatres, les reunions a Bay Street, et meme sur une large portion des emissions televisees, on parle anglais. A Montreal, malgre la loi 101, quand d'importantes reunions d'affaires se tiennent entre Quebecois (francophones ou anglophones), il y a de fortes chances que la discussion soit en anglais, qu'on demande aux employes francophones de rediger de la documentation interne en anglais. L'anglais reste et restera pour beaucoup a Toronto comme a Montreal la langue du prestige et du succes. Les tentatives linguistiques nationalistes souvent jugees excessives visent a changer cet etat de choses en forcant l'usage du francais dans certaines situations: a la sortie d'un film, une version francaise doit etre disponible, pour les entreprises de 50 employes ou plus, la seule langue de travail est le francais, les immigrants doivent envoyer leurs enfants a l'ecole francaise, et bien sur la question controversee de l'affichage. > >In those neighborhoods where the concentrations of other cultures is >very high, signs tend to be other than English. Why not in Montreal where >few non-French signs would appear in predominantly French neighborhoods >anyhow? > Un grand nombre de francophones a Montreal croient qu'il y aurait alors un grand nombre d'affiches montrant d'autres langues que le francais au centre-ville (zone d'influence culturelle) et meme dans les quartiers francais si telle liberte etait admise. > >I'm against giving any group, minority or majority, special rights by law. >Because all they do in the end is create classes of citizenry and create >divisions between various sub-cultures. Legislating division not unification. >Which is the last thing we need. Vous seriez contre une legislation interdisant les enfants au vote et au travail? Votre discours est peut-etre trop general. Vous pouvez bien etre contre le fait de donner des droits specifiques aux francophones au Canada anglais, mais bien des gens seraient en desaccord avec vous. > >Why do the Quebecois insist on ghettoizing themselves? Most of Canada is >defacto multi-cultural, in many cases not by legislation, but by how the >country *works*. > >Why aren't we giving similar rights to Ukrainians? They're a pretty damn >large minority. As far as I'm concerned they're a founding ethnic of this >country. They've probably been abused worse than the Quebecois. And there >are whole areas where the population is almost exclusively Ukrainian. Are >they insisting on their own language on everything? No. Insisting upon >publicly-funded Ukrainian education? Mostly no. > >Ditto Chinese, German, Italian, Dutch and many others. > >Thank god for that. >-- >Chris Lewis, Markham, Ontario, Canada Votre point de vue peut se defendre. Les Canadiens, en majorite, ont reconnu l'importance des peuples fondateurs francais et anglais. Vous avez le droit de desirer qu'aucune langue n'ait de statut privilegie, mais cela demanderait des changements majeurs a la realite canadienne et motiverait fortement les forces separatistes au Quebec. L'heritage multiethnique des Canadiens est considere dans la constitution canadienne, mais les Canadiens ont juge bon de considerer l'anglais et le francais comme langues officielles, cela a pour consequence inevitable de proteger les minorites anglophones et francophones au pays. Philippe Derome. Si vous voulez service en anglais a Postes Canada a Montreal, vous l'aurez, pour moi ce serait pratiquement me couvrir de ridicule si j'utilisais le francais a mon bureau de poste torontois (j'ai essaye meme si je connais l'anglais).
derome@ai.toronto.edu (Philippe Derome) (01/02/89)
In article <169@ecicrl.UUCP> clewis@ecicrl.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes: >Everybody's going to should "that's easy for you to say! Yours won't." >Does that deprive me of an opinion or invalidate one? Nope. Especially >since there is just as little likelyhood that the French-Canadian culture >will disappear. Or Canadian-Ukrainian, Canadian-Jewish or any other of >the rest of the hyphenated cultures that are not disappearing either, even >though they don't have the ability to create such laws. > >If Ukrainians, Poles, Jews, Chinese, Japanese etc. can keep their cultures >alive without such laws, why can't the Quebecois? Are they afraid that >without being forced nobody would think the Quebecois culture was worth >keeping? They only sell themselves short... It depends what you mean by alive. By many standards the french culture in the USA (13 000 000 citizens) is dying. How alive are the Japanese Polish cultures in Canada. Give me a break. In reality, there are only two truly strong cultures in this country. >-- >Chris Lewis, Markham, Ontario, Canada Philippe Derome
derome@ai.toronto.edu (Philippe Derome) (01/03/89)
In article <463@telly.UUCP> evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes: >I remember some kind of law that requires that children be taught in the >French shool system. To be able to attend, say, Montreal's Protestant School >Board, a child must have parents who can BOTH prove that their 'mother tongue' >is English. As I recall, the intent of this law was to force Canadian >immigrants settling in Quebec to go through French schooling (prior to the >law, most had opted for English). > >I'm pretty sure this law is the reason why Montreal, which had a reputation >for being the multi-cultural centre of Canada, has clearly lost that to >Toronto in the last decade. The neighborhood of Duddy Kravitz has been all >but wiped out. Je crois que les opportunites economiques de Toronto ont ete un facteur bien plus important. Philippe Derome
cbs@geac.UUCP (Chris Syed) (01/03/89)
In article <89Jan2.143344est.38114@neat.ai.toronto.edu>, derome@ai.toronto.edu (Philippe Derome) writes: > > A Montreal, malgre la loi 101, quand d'importantes reunions d'affaires > se tiennent entre Quebecois (francophones ou anglophones), > il y a de fortes chances que la discussion soit en anglais, qu'on > demande aux employes francophones de rediger de la documentation > interne en anglais. A couple of years ago, the Learned Societies meeting was held in Montreal, and will be again this year. (Not hardly a business group, I know). At the outset of our group's meeting, the co-ordinator asked how many Anglophones there were, and if they would they like a translation. The three or four of us in attendance said no. For three days, we listened to French presentations - the first time for me since high-school, and I found that it all came back - especially since they were speaking of topics in our field. Sadly, I can't remember enough French to write this in that language, but I'm looking forward to the next Congress. I thought this approach was fine, and it certainly kept me awake. More than I can say for a lot of conferences! 8-) {uunet!jtsv16,utgpu,yunexus}!geac!cbs (Chris Syed)
leblanc@eecg.toronto.edu (Marcel LeBlanc) (01/04/89)
In article <89Jan3.101920est.38116@neat.ai.toronto.edu> derome@ai.toronto.edu (Philippe Derome) writes: >In article <463@telly.UUCP> evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes: >>I remember some kind of law that requires that children be taught in the >>French shool system. To be able to attend, say, Montreal's Protestant School >>Board, a child must have parents who can BOTH prove that their 'mother tongue' >> ... >>I'm pretty sure this law is the reason why Montreal, which had a reputation >>for being the multi-cultural centre of Canada, has clearly lost that to >>Toronto in the last decade. The neighborhood of Duddy Kravitz has been all >> ... >Je crois que les opportunites economiques de Toronto ont ete un facteur >bien plus important. > > Philippe Derome Les opportunites economiques a Toronto sont plus nombreuses surtout depuis l'adoption de la Loi 101. Marcel A. LeBlanc | University of Toronto -- Toronto, Canada leblanc@eecg.toronto.edu | also: LMS Technologies Ltd, Fredericton, NB, Canada ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UUCP: uunet!utai!eecg!leblanc BITNET: leblanc@eecg.utoronto (may work) ARPA: leblanc%eecg.toronto.edu@relay.cs.net CDNNET: <...>.toronto.cdn
clewis@ecicrl.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (01/06/89)
In article <89Jan2.144016est.38114@neat.ai.toronto.edu> derome@ai.toronto.edu (Philippe Derome) writes: >In article <169@ecicrl.UUCP> clewis@ecicrl.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes: >> >>If Ukrainians, Poles, Jews, Chinese, Japanese etc. can keep their cultures >>alive without such laws, why can't the Quebecois? Are they afraid that >>without being forced nobody would think the Quebecois culture was worth >>keeping? They only sell themselves short... >It depends what you mean by alive. By many standards the french culture >in the USA (13 000 000 citizens) is dying. They obviously didn't think that their culture was worth preserving enough to fight hard enough to preserve it, did they? We're also presuming a lot to suggest that they *did* want to preserve it. Even in the USA it is possible to preserve ethnic culture - witness the fact that many Hispanic, Black, Native-Indian and southern-white subcultures are still quite strong. > How alive are the Japanese >Polish cultures in Canada. I don't know any Japanese-Poles do you? Seriously, they are still very much alive though not nearly as visible as the Ukrainians or Jews. >Give me a break. In reality, there are only >two truly strong cultures in this country. Right. Doesn't the fact that one of these "truly strong cultures" thinks it has to circumvent part of the constitution to survive (whereas most of the cultures that aren't "truly strong" don't) sound like a bit of a contradiction? -- Chris Lewis, Markham, Ontario, Canada {uunet!attcan,utgpu,yunexus,utzoo}!lsuc!ecicrl!clewis Ferret Mailing list: ...!lsuc!gate!eci386!ferret-request (or lsuc!gate!eci386!clewis or lsuc!clewis)