Thanks Obama

This post is slightly NSFW

Language Fun with Technology

You may have seen maps of Europe where a word is translated in to the national language of every country, and it reveals heaps of fun patterns.  Well, someone has crafted the app so that we can all make such maps.


My favorite.  Why?  Because even in France, they call email email.  In Quebec, with its insecurity, courrier or something like that.  I forget now that I have moved.

My second favorite.  Why?  Beer.  Very useful!

Anyhow, have fun and let me know if you find any amusing results.

The Most Romantic Language of Them All

This video is especially appropriate given a twitter conversation I had this morning:

@prisonrodeo @smsaideman if you nab a Juniorprofessor position: golden. If you are consigned to Lehrbeauftragter, though...
— Tom Pepinsky (@TomPepinsky) September 13, 2013

@prisonrodeo @smsaideman another lousy position with scary name: Wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter
— Tom Pepinsky (@TomPepinsky) September 13, 2013

Oh my. German academic positions scare me.

Bonjour-Hi

There is a secret code for folks shopping in Montreal: when in a store, the clerk will often say Bonjour-Hi.  And then you pick in which language the rest of the transaction takes place.  At first, I tried to do these transactions in my poor French, but that just caused confusion and frustration.  So, I just would say hi and move on in English.  This is pretty cool for a city where people speak multiple languages.

Well, unless your job is to enforce French supremacy.  Don Macpherson has a piece today about how the language police office is upset that 13% of transactions in downtown Montreal begin with Bonjour-Hi.  Worse, the Liberal language rep is "concerned."  Oh, please.  This is all just posturing for the language nationalists.  That sales folks want to make customers feel comfortable by operating in their language of choice, 13% of the time downtown, that is, is something to be concerned or irritated about? 

Ah, the joy of misplaced priorities. This, I will not miss.  Absolument non.

Do Not Underestimate the Power of the Dark Side

Do not underestimate the power of the dark side.  Which dark side?  Political theory.  Well, specifically political theorists.  I have long teased my soon to be ex-colleague Jacob Levy about his field's apparent fact-less-ness.  Why need grant money to do research when it mostly involves sitting in a comfy chair and thinking deep thoughts?  Why need RAs?  Of course, most of this came out of a deep jealousy: that Jacob was able to build McGill's political theory program over the course of actually a few short years (about half my time at McGill), that it has its own space, and, more importantly, a deep reality of community.  Not my subfield, which has stagnated via spin-cycle.  Theory has accumulated positions while IR has stood still (well, backwards next year after I leave and the place only begins the replacement process).

Anyhow, I always knew Jacob to be very, very bright, and was always amazed with his ability to speak eloquently in paragraphs at the drop of a hat.  Well, he marshaled his intellect to ponder the Quebec higher educational system.  Check it out here.  The combination of high taxes and cheap tuition for Quebeckers (and higher tuition for those coming from outside QC) leads to this:

 even if some number of high-earning francophones leave (and therefore never "pay back" the cheap university educations they receive) the system broadly tends toward making francophone Quebec a more self-contained economic world in which people do spend their whole life cycles, while simultaneously subtly encouraging anglophone out-migration and discouraging anglophone in-migration.

Jacob goes on to note his sympathy with this system in that it is a less coercive strategy to "sustain the French fact" even if it probably "depress the overall prosperity of Quebec."  This is quite a tradeoff.  A second significant set of costs would be alienating the Anglophones within Quebec and alienating those beyond as well.  A less diverse Quebec is, well, a less diverse Quebec.  While I remain deeply skeptical in debates about ethnic conflict about diversity as independent variable (that more diverse populations might have more ethnic strife), I do think that more diversity is better than less.  Pushing Anglophones and allophones (immigrants who speak three or more languages) to leave Quebec is damaging to Quebec's future because it will not have the necessary population to sustain the social programs without significant help.  Aye, there is the rub.

The Quebec distinct society currently depends on huge subsidies from Canada (that would be Alberta mostly these days and Ontario in the recent past).  The question then becomes: does sending out alienated Anglos to populate the political systems of the rest of Canada [ROC] build glue between Quebec and ROC so that folks out there remain willing to fund Quebec (guess who pays for the low tuition ultimately--Canadians elsewhere to a significant degree) or does it just give those outside more facts, more attitude that decrease tolerance of paying for the "French fact"?

The only thing that is really clear to me is if you spot a sharp political theorist with a few facts, they will blow your mind.

A Squirrel in Red and White and Bleu

The biggest story in Montreal for the past week or so has not been the bridges that might be on the verge of collapse nor that global warming may be causing our non-white x-mas.  Or heaps of other stories that might be seen as important.  Mais non, the story of the week is that the Canadiens have replaced their coach with their assistant coach who ne parle pas francais. 

So, of course, the letters in the English newspapers say this is not a big deal, that the letters in the French press say it is.  But I wonder how much of this is a media and elite creation as opposed to the public?  It does come on the heels of various other nationalist/language events, such as Prime Minister Stephen Harper appointing a serious of unilingual folks to top federal positions.  Thus, there may be heightened sensitivity at a time where the parties focused on the defense of French are at low ebbs.

It is easy for me as an anglophone to say that the bridges are more important than hockey simply because hockey only harms those who are involved in the game (Crosby and his concussions) whereas bridge/tunnel collapses can kill and that threat is costing Montreal and Quebec a great deal. 

Still, the Canadiens are more than an ordinary hockey team, but a key component of Quebec (and Canadian) identity.  That the local team has a coach who cannot speak in French is purely a problem for the public and the press, as the team only has a couple of Francophones on it and nobody complained when the guy was just an assistant coach.  The problem is that there are a limited number of Francophone coaches, and speaking french is neither an asset or a disadvantage when it comes to winning.  But if you restrict the pool of candidates, you might be putting yourself at a competitive disadvantage. 

The real question, then, may become: do Quebeckers and Montrealers prefer a decently performing team where the coach speaks French or would they prefer an excellent team where the coach does not?  The good news is that they really do not have to choose.  The team's players are ok enough that the quality of the coach does not matter much.  So, restrict the pool of candidates for the coach (and team captain), satisfy the bored media and the underemployed nationalist politicians--the Cup is not coming to Montreal next spring regardless of whether the coach speaks French, English or Urdu.

Random Posts Amidst the Snow

Actually, we have had very little snow thus far in and near Montreal, except for a brief and ill-timed snow storm on the morning we drove south for Thanksgiving.  This has delayed the annual trip to take the skis to the store to get them tuned for the new season.  As I commented on the lack of snow, my daughter said that there is snow up north. I replied: we are up north!  Ah, the joys of Canada in winter.

Anyhow, a few things came up this morning in Canadian politics that I wanted to touch on briefly:

• For Canada, the NAC FM is a NAC DM suddenly.  That is, twice a year, the Foreign Ministers of NATO countries meet to discuss a variety of alliance issues, such as Afghanistan, Libya, enlargement, missile defense, etc.  This is called the NAC FM for North Atlantic Council with Foreign Ministers as the representatives.  The NAC DM is a similar event for Defense Ministers.  The fun story of the day is that Peter MacKay is running off to be Canada's rep at the NAC FM even though he is Canada's Minister of National Defence.  Why?  Because he lied is confused about using a search and rescue helicopter for his own convenience while on vacation.  Yes, this is a misuse of public resources, but this is also the kind of stuff that gets media attention, more so than some of the difficult problems that face Canada's defence community.  
• Canada cannot afford a modern air force, army and navy, so it really needs to pick only one or two services or address the reality that jack of all trades here definitely means master of none.
• The submarine disaster will continue to plague Canada for a while to come despite various denials.  The reality is that the subs Canada bought from the British don't work.  Talk about sunk cost.
• What happened to transformation?  That is, will DND really cut headquarters costs, even if not as LTG (ret.) Leslie advocated?  
• Most importantly, what the hell is going on with the position of Minister of National Defence when it seems likely that MacKay was not consulted (nor was the military) when the Prime Minister planned to send trainers to Afghanistan in the aftermath of pulling out the combat forces out of Kandahar?  That is, no experts were consulted, and the guy who is responsible for the military was not in the room.  So, what does that mean for the quality of defence decision-making?  And yes, I keep going back and forth between defense and defence (holy conflicted identity, Batman!).
• The Parti Quebecois Language Critic (the representative in charge of the party's stances on language) said that he would not be answering questions at press conferences in English.  He felt that there is only one official language in Quebec, and he should not give standing to any other.  Well, since his party is unlikely to get significant votes from Anglophones, he is not sacrificing any votes.  Still, he is as presumptious as all get-out, as he says that France's leaders speak French when they go abroad, why not the leaders of a French state, such as Quebec?  Ah, but Quebec is still part of Canada, for the time being anyway.  It is not the equivalent of France (although we do wish that Quebec's health care was as good as France's....).   
• His party's leader, Pauline Marois, said she will still answer questions in English.  Of course, she has been failing so miserably (her party just lost a by-election in an historically Liberal but largely Francophone district despite her spending a great amount of effort at a time where the Liberals are quite unpopular across the province).  
• This reminds of the time I got stopped for speeding, and asked the police officer if we could do the transaction in English since I didn't want to make any mistakes in this kind of high stakes situation.  He said "I don't have to" and then proceeded to speak to me in English.
• One last language note: when I lectured in French on Tuesday, the students immediately broke into applause.  I guess they appreciated the effort.  Either that or they knew it would be quite entertaining, as in slapstick comedy....
• Construction mess continued.  One of the main stretches of the Turcot interchange (from the city to the bridges across the island) has such significant problems that much money will be wasted with cops being posted to make sure that trucks bypass this area.  Of course, this also means that their detours will mess up traffic patterns throughout key parts of the city.  Driving in this city was never fun, but is becoming increasingly awful.  Indeed, now employers on the West Island are advertising the traffic problems as a reason for folks to take lower wages to work in the suburbs.

I will miss McGill's students, but will not miss the challenges of getting to and from them.

Language Politics Writ Small

For months, I have been mildly amused about a poster in the men's room near my McGill office.  The poster, put up in response to the flu threat a year or two ago, instructs people how to wash their hands.  The funny thing is that it is in French, as McGill's language of instruction is almost entirely English.  While many McGill students and faculty are bilingual, some are not so much.  Anyhow, I felt it was strange that the sign had no English on it, although the pictures made it clear what was being instructed.

Still, it bothered someone enough to write on the sign, demanding that it should be in English.  This graffiti has been up there for a few weeks, when someone else continued the conversation, demanding:

"Apprennez français calis!"   

Which means: Learn French, Chalice!  I think.  That is, it means Learn French and then I think uses the Quebec word for Chalice, as Quebeckers have taken words from the Catholic Church and turned them into curse words.  I would be surer if the person was using another Quebec-ism such as Tabernac, which I have heard far more often on frisbee fields.

This graffiti conversation is interesting to me, both because it shows the linguistic politics in Montreal, and because it illustrates the on-going Quebec conflict over religion, given the calis interpretation that I think is correct.

Of course, given that the poster shows how to wash hands (and that there is now a second poster in the same bathroom, but in English [with "francais svp" written all over it]), and given these kinds of posters are always ignored anyway since we wash our hands like we always have, this is really the epitome of a tempest in a teapot.

Rights on Sale?

One last rant (for the time being) about the language and education fracas here in Quebec.  The Liberals shoved through Bill 115 that creates a process that allows people otherwise unentitled to English public schools in Quebec (immigrants, Francophones) buy going to unsubsidized private school for three years and then going through a process by which their sincerity is assessed--whether English is their genuine pathway. 

The Parti Quebecois opposed it and vows to get rid of it as soon as they are in power (which is inevitable, given how long the Liberals have been in office and how much they have mis-governed).  The PQ argues that this means that rights are for sale.  The interesting thing here, for me anyway, is that this implicitly recognizes that the choice is defined as rights for sale (via private schools) or the denial of rights.  Ooops.  The PQ cannot be in the position of saying that they are denying people rights.  So, they have to cover up their real position in class conflict sauce (is class conflict sauce just denial sauce with a few extra ingredients?). 

The funny thing is that I have been both writing and lecturing the past few days about veto points--the idea (Tsebelis) that with more players having the ability to say no, the harder it is to reach agreement.  This makes any existing agreements much harder to change.  The joy and the pain of parliamentary government (especially British-style, ironically enough) is that all you need to do to change lots of stuff is have a simple majority in seats.  So, I have no doubt that the PQ will repeal Bill 115 when it gets into power.  I am not a huge fan of the bill, as I view it as the Liberals selling out their Anglophone and immigrant constituents (not to mention principals perhaps).  I don't have to imagine the PQ doing worse as they have already promised to do so--removing the English private school option entirely for immigrants.  I am just hoping that the political process takes long enough that my daughter is out of high school before she gets kicked out of her school. 

The irony is that I am mighty upset about how the US Senate operates these days, with a super-majority required to get anything done, but I would love to have a super-majority requirement for the big decisions in Quebec.  Unfortunately, requiring more than fifty percent plus one only applies to leadership battles within the PQ.

Frame This: Buying Rights or Denying Rights

Yes, readers of the Spew may be tired of posts about language politics in Quebec, but when a guy has got to spew, a guy has got to spew.  The latest: Pauline Marois, leader of the separatist Parti Quebecois, spoke yesterday about what her party would do after it wins the next election: repeal the Liberal bill 103 that would provide some mechanism for immigrants and Francophones to have their kids be educated in English.

This is really some pretty clever framing of the issue.  The status quo allows folks to send their kids to unsubsidized private English schools (there are very few of these).  The new bill would let folks send their kids for three years to such schools and then they would be eligible for English public schools.  This is all happening because the Canadian Supreme Court ruled against the previous modification to the status quo ante--that kids would become eligible after one year of private school in English.  Marois and the PQ are arguing that the new "pathway" lets the rich buy rights that the rest of the population does not have.  Oooooh.  Rights buying!!!  Nicely framed as to make it look like the issue is of rich Anglophone immigrants buying their way into English education for their kids.

Of course, one could take a different approach, and say that the PQ is denying people the freedom to choose for themselves what is best for their kids.  This would mean that all are denied rights, not just the rich.  On occasion, Marois and other PQ folks have said exactly that and then retreated.  Oops.  So, Marois has to argue that the Canadian Supreme Court is an alien entity with no jurisdiction in Quebec, which is what she does:

Calling the Supreme Court "a tribunal exclusively controlled by another nation," Marois says the PQ would use the notwithstanding clause to extend the French language charter to include all private schools.

Bill 103 Suffers from Loneliness

Nobody but nobody likes the effort to reform Quebec's education laws to comply with a Canadian Supreme Court ruling yet deny most folks language choice.  Yep, that is what the Quebec government must do--thread the narrow passage between the Scylla of unconstitutional legislation and the Charybdis of French nationalism.  The Court had crushed the "fix" made earlier--just after I took my job here at McGill and before we moved in--that an immigrant sending a kid to private English school would then be eligible for the public English system.

The Parti Quebecois and its fellow travelers including the union representing CEGEP students [those in the unique post-high school, pre-university free two years of junior/vocational/whatever education), a member of the New Democratic Party (essentially betraying its ideology to pander to French nationalism), among others have spoke up at hearings and filed briefs saying that French is in danger and the changes here do not go far enough.  What they want is to prevent any and all immigrants from going to any and all English schools, including unsubsidized private ones.  Right now, people can send their kids to unsubsidized private ones, as my family does. 

The sovereignist "intellectuals," whose brief was presented by former PQ MNA Gilbert Paquette, argued that the government measure is based on false premises. It maintained that contrary to government assertions, applying Bill 101 access rules to all schools in Quebec, including unsubsidized ones, does not violate any universal rights recognized by the United Nations or even the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that there would be no need to invoke the notwithstanding clause.

Well, this "intellectuals" are, well, idiots, since the very fact that the Supreme Court has already ruled against the prior bill indicates that the Charter applies and that there would be a need to invoke the notwithstanding clause (which allows a province or the Federal government to say that the Charter and Supreme Court are not relevant--with a simple majority vote).*

The English associations are opposed to Bill 103 because it really does not provide much real access to English public schools, which have been in decline for some time now thanks to Bill 101 and the flight of many Anglophones in and around 1995.

So, who likes this bill?  Um, no one.  I am sure the party in power, the provincial Liberals, would have much preferred for there to be no Supreme Court ruling that forced a response.  The Liberals would prefer to sell out the Anglophone minority (who have no other party that can really claim their votes) quietly rather than loudly.  Instead, they are forced to try to pass a bill that antagonizes everyone. 







*  Does this mean that my bet with Jacob Levy is still on?  Hmm, I will wait until the deadline made by the Court is up and this legislation passes to call it.

When a Bad Law Looks Good

Today's Montreal Gazette (yes, it is known for being biased in the language debates) has letters to the editor by Anglophones complaining about the limited language choice of Bill 103 but also a frontpage story where the leader of the Parti Quebecois, Pauline Marois, met with a group of language hawks on the other side of the debate, seeking to mobilize against Bill 103 for giving too much choice to the Anglophones.  Amongst the groups joining this "mobilization" are a few that are quite radical and have threatened violence on occasion.

So, Bill 103, which essentially tries to throw a patch over the problem and minimize the fallout for the current government, looks a bit better than the PQ's alternative: invoking the notwithstanding clause and end the English private school option for everyone.  Marois thinks that using this clause that overrides the Canadian Charter of Rights is no big deal--that the majority of folks in Quebec have the right to do what they want.  Again, the wonderful irony that a previously oppressed minority in Canada does not mind imposing a tyranny of majority when it gets the chance. 

However, there is one problem here: recent polls show that there are significant majorities in all language groups that favor educational choice.  Neither the Liberals nor the PQ is playing to this majority, but the Liberals are closer to the median than the PQ.  Hard not to be when the PQ is captured by its extreme wing.  The Liberals have governed for a long time in Quebec, and there is some exhaustion.  Yet, it may be the case that they would still win the next election if the PQ keeps moving further and further to an extreme end of the spectrum.  Marois is somewhat held hostage by the hawks in her party, so she may end up having to represent a platform in the next election that is unappealing to the majority of Quebec folks.  On the other hand, maybe the Anglophones will not turn out so much since the Liberals have disappointed again. 

I just hope we can get three more years of Liberal rule, so my daughter can make it through high school without having to change schools or us to move out of province in response to a PQ revision of Bill 103.

Tyranny of Indecision

We were supposed to get a decision from the current government of Quebec, the Provincial Liberals, on how they propose to reform the laws governing access to English education.  But they missed their deadline!  So, now, I guess they will need PQ support to get it tabled, if not passed.  Why should the PQ let the Liberals put forward a moderate proposal if this is what the Liberals want to do?  What do the PQ want?

the price of PQ consent was extending Bill 101 to Quebec's private unsubsidized schools and ensuring there would be no legal challenge by using the notwithstanding clause to over-ride constitutional protection for fundamental rights.

So, if this were to happen, and if they were not to grandfather kids who have been in unsubsidized English schools for eight years or so, my family would be compelled to move to Ontario or New York and I would face a significantly longer commute to work until my daughter finishes high school.  Oh, and Quebec would demonstrate that constitutional protection and fundamental rights are what? misnomers?  

This is amazing that the Liberals would choose not to choose, that they would surrender their leverage over the issue and empower the PQ by missing the deadline that they knew existed.  Apparently, these folks do not know how to do their jobs.  Is this pathetic or something worse?  The only bright side is that my colleague would have to teach my IR class in Klingon for five minutes.

Incoming! Quebec Language Education Reform Due Soon

Apparently, the big decision about how the Quebec government is going to respond to the Supreme Court's decision regarding bill 104 (that eliminated one loophole to access English education in Quebec) must be put forth this week in order to get through the National Assembly by the end of its current term.  As it turns out, my previous post on this, entitled Tyranny of the Majority, may no longer be appropriate.  Today's Gazette reports a survey that not only do a majority of Quebecers favor unfettered access to education in the language of one's choice (well, English or French), but the majority of Francophones do so as well--more than sixty percent do so.

Yes, it may have been different if the wording had focused on protecting French rather than preferring freedom.  But the folks who vote for the Provincial Liberals are certainly in this sixty percent and probably only some of them would change their views if the wording changed. This might give the governing party some more spine to do the right thing.  The Parti Quebec wants the notwithstanding clause invoked as this would be the most blunt assertion of Quebec's power. 

What are the stakes here?  Besides my daughter's future, it may also decide whether we end up living in Ontario or northernmost New York.  More importantly, I have a bet with a colleague.  If the NW clause is invoked, he must lecture to my big Intro to IR class next fall for five minutes in Klingon.  If not, then I must lecture to my class for five minutes in French. 

The compromise being floated might allow those kids with parents educated in English anywhere in the world (or at least in the US and UK) to be allowed to get their education in English whereas the current law only allows those educated in English in Canada to send their kids to English schools.  I forget how it currently works for kids whose parents are one of each--one Anglophone and one Francophone.

The same survey prefers the status quo for the next level of education--CEGEP, which is a system unique to Quebec replacing 12th grade and the first year of university.  On this, the polls register eighty percent or more in favor of allowing people to pick a CEGEP regardless of their language status (most CEGEPs are Francophone but some are Anglophone).  The Parti Quebecois has been pushing for making CEGEPs like K-11 (and also day care, which would be harder still since they are not formally Anglo or Franco). 

Anyhow, we are very much anxious as we wait for the other shoe to drop.  If it drops the wrong way, we may have to move.  If it drops the right way, we can chill for a bit.  Still not looking forward to the next PQ government, which the Liberals seem to be bent on assuring. 

Threats and Responses

Thanks again to some really thoughtful responses.  I promised to respond with a focus on threats, so see below:

But before starting, I have many biases, but the one that comes to mind as an American is that I tend to worry more about individual rights than collective rights.  And I worry about governments interfering too much, and I worry about people who worry too much.  For instance, lots of folks worry about the new immigrants to the US not learning English.  I would rather the market and the society have its impact, which will be to protect English, than impose the state upon the individuals.  If they want to send their kids to private school in Spanish, that is their choice.

Anyhow, here is what I wrote while waiting for my internet connection to work again after the break:

Tyranny of the Majority

I provoked some folks yesterday by suggesting that Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms is pretty weak, given the ability of Parliament and of provinces to opt out by using the Notwithstanding clause. 

The comments indicated that there are norms not to over-use it, that it does not protect the language stuff I mentioned since Quebec has the right to do what it pleases in this area, and that protection of culture/language trumps individual rights. 

My problem is not so much with what has happened but with what can happen.  Norms are fragile reeds on which to base one's confidence in the political system.  I tend to look to institutions and incentives.  And that is where the problem lies/lays/resides.  Institutions already privilege the state's rights to impose upon individuals, despite language in the rest of the Charter suggesting otherwise.  Incentives exist that make recourse to notwithstanding clause a temptation to politicians and a threat to political minorities (those folks who cannot win majorities, whether it is due to ideology, language, race, or whatever). 

Let me speak to incentives.  Canada and Quebec have first-past-the-post electoral systems, where pluralities of votes are turned into majorities.  This has not happened at the national level for a while, as the existence of a regional voting bloc (the Bloc Quebecois) upsets the math.  This empowers Quebec in a variety of ways at the national level, particularly given that a party can only gain a majority in the Parliament (for now) if it is able to gain enough seats in Quebec at the expense of the BQ and the other parties.  So, because of this and because of the ongoing tensions, Quebec can do pretty much what it wants.  That is an exaggeration perhaps, and, again I am not a Canadianist or a constitutional scholar, but I am a scholar of ethnic conflict. 

Anyhow, what is really important for me is that within Quebec, it is essentially once again a two party system where the two compete for 90% of the vote (the other 10% are Anglophones who have no place else go politically other than the Provincial Liberals)* and, by the way, the voting districts are designed to marginalize Montreal.  So, whichever party gets enough francophone votes wins a majority of seats, and given the various institutions in play, this gives that majority party a great deal of power, including the ability to legislate against the interests and perhaps rights of minorities.  This looks a whole lot like ethnic outbidding, and it reminds me a whole lot of Sri Lanka from the 1950's to the 1980's where the two parties competed to be the best at protecting the Sinhalese, resulting in the marginalization of the Tamils.  I am not saying that the Anglophones in Quebec would face the same level of violence as in Sri Lanka (before that, more would leave as others have done so).  Just that the institutions and proportions are very, very similar so that the political dynamics here combined with the lack of institutional protections (because of the existence of the NW clause and the possibility of its use) create a climate of fear and uncertainty: there are no barriers to tyranny of the majority.

I am very, very, very worried about reforms to Bill 104 since there are actors actively seeking to end my ability to send my child to private school because we are immigrants.  The PQ and its allies are making such noises.  Why would a political imperiled Jean Charest take the hard road and protect the folks whose votes do not matter, when he can play the nationalist card instead and curry favor with the hawks on the language issue?  While I have not started looking for rental housing in Cornwall or Plattsburgh, I have google-mapped to see how far my commutes might become if I have to leave the province but still work at McGill.  And why?  Because I fear tyranny of the majority. 

Of course, the irony is that much of the past in Quebec is driven by their own experience with tyranny of the majority--that Anglophone Canada oppressed Francophone Quebec.  So,what is good for the goose .....  means that there are not institutions nor sentiment about protecting the minorities, but rather a willingness (as exemplified by the reasonable accommodation hysteria of the past few years) to stomp on the rights of some minorities to assure the majority that the imaginary threats have been squashed. 

Tomorrow I will address where the threats are coming from and why Quebec cannot really do much about it.








*  I find that the anglophones in Montreal are very much like African-Americans in the Democratic Party since they cannot really support the PQ.  The ADQ ran against Montreal so that was not really an option either.

Is Canada Free?

A few weeks ago, there was much noise about the fact that in one dataset, the US was considered a bit less free economically than Canada.  I, of course, scoffed since I live in Quebec, where the heavy hand of the state is always on the wheel, much more so than anywhere in the US.  But that got me to thinking, especially as debates have flared up about niqabs and English private schools: does the notwithstanding clause mean that Canada is only mostly free or partly free?

Canada does have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

 This also includes legal rights to life, liberty, security, due process, equality under the law, and so forth.
It goes on to guarantee language rights:

Official languages of Canada

16. (1) English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and government of Canada.

Language of instruction

23. (1) Citizens of Canada

(a) whose first language learned and still understood is that of the English or French linguistic minority population of the province in which they reside, or

(b) who have received their primary school instruction in Canada in English or French and reside in a province where the language in which they received that instruction is the language of the English or French linguistic minority population of the province,

have the right to have their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in that language in that province. (footnote indicates not in force in Quebec). 

 At first, I noticed that it specifies citizens, but the restrictions on language education in Quebec apply even to immigrants who become citizens.  And there is the kicker--the footnote saying this does not apply in Quebec.

To be clear, I am not a Canadianist or a constitutional scholar, but it seems mighty strange that a charter of fundamental freedoms provides the national parliament or any provincial assembly to say: nope, not for us.  There are limits--that the notwithstanding invocation only lasts five years.  Then the assembly or parliament would have to vote again.  But these votes are simple majorities.  So, as long as a minority is permanently a minority, their rights exist to a large degree at the whim of the majority. 

This leads to me the conclusion that this Charter (unless I am confused, that the notwithstanding clause can only be applied to part of it?) is just a piece of paper.  If the government can pass restrictions on rights, such as the right to wear religious garb, with a simple majority, then does freedom of religion really exist?  If one cannot choose the language of instruction for one's children from one of the two official languages but is forced to educate the child in one, does this right exist?  Not in Quebec.  

I understand that the politics of past constitutional crises have produce compromises that perhaps have allowed Canada to remain united.  But the cost has been a certain amount of freedoms and rights.  So, I guess Canada is mostly free. 

Language Politics: A Contintuing Theme

While I was away in France and Germany, it was time for the semi-annual language controversy in Montreal. Apparently, there was a non-francophone band that was invited and then uninvited and then re-invited for the St. Jean de Bapiste Day celebrations. This day is THE Quebec National holiday, celebrating the Quebec nation and is largely, although not entirely, associated with Quebec separatism, ahem, make that sovereignty.

So, it is only appropriate that in today's Gazette there is a story about a poll about the different perceptions of French in Quebec. The Anglophones and the Allophones (whose first language is neither French nor English) don't think that the French language is threatened in Montreal, while Francophones overwhelmingly do think French is threatened. Since I just spent a week in Paris where a country historically known for the assertion of its identity and language seemed remarkably chill about these topics (including four or five langauges on the emergency explanation in the Metro), I found this extremely interesting.

I am going to track down the survey because it seems like it might have a huge bias. That is, the Anglophones and Allophones largely reside in Montreal, and the question seemed to be phrased as "Is French in danger in Montreal?" So, who were the Francophones who responded? If Montrealers, then I would consider their opinion to be a serious concern, as they are experiencing daily life and if they feel their language is in danger, well, that is serious. But if it is somewhat or largely folks elsewhere, then it is a largely a matter of politics and not of threat.

The reality is that the defenders of French have largely won their battles. They control the commanding heights of the political, economic and social systems of Quebec and even of Montreal. They have passed legislation and enforced it that makes French more prominent, that makes the immigrants (except for those stubborn few who send their kids to private schools--so that only half of their K-6th education is in French) send their kids to French immersion programs. This idea that French is threatened in Montreal largely resides on old beliefs about how things used to be.

There really is only one last thing that Quebec could do--it could eliminate or significantly reduce English from the air waves. Right now, telelecommunications is regulated by the federal government, but that could be grabbed by Quebec. However, that would be of limited impact since those who want their English programs on radio or TV could simply get gray market satellite programming and/or rely more on the internet. In a globalized world (as much as globalization is overplayed) and located next to the US, there is actually very little the Quebec or Canadian governments can do to limit English telecommunications products. Even banning English movies would not work since people would just see them online, legally or illegally.

But, these surveys are always good for feeding the beast--the newspapers and other media in this town who want to focus on the language dynamics rather than the lousy public services....

Linguistically Limited: Lazy? Lame?

In the Washington Post, there is a fascinating piece on the technology of translation, with Google apparently starting to dominate this business as well. A running thread in the article is a US DoD funded effort to develop handheld translators for each soldier on the ground:

It "reminds me of the old joke:

"Guard: 'Now tell me where you hid the money, or you will suffer.'
"Translator: 'Tell him where the money is, or you will suffer.'
"Prisoner: 'I'll never speak.'
"Translator: 'He says he won't tell you.'
"Guard: Putting gun to prisoner's head. "Tell him I will blow his brains out if he doesn't tell me immediately.'
"Translator: 'He will shoot you in the head unless you tell him now.'
"Prisoner: 'I buried a million dollars under the floorboards in the old woodshed.'
"Translator: Pauses. 'He says you don't have the guts to shoot him . . . .' "

As an American anglophone in Montreal, Quebec, I am often asked about: (a) my language skills; and (b) the linguistic requirements of living in Quebec. Of course, there is a relationship between the two, as (b) partially determines (a). My French skills are slightly better than restaurant-level. I can read most non-technical stuff and get the gist--signs, emails about ultimate, etc. I can ask questions but often cannot understand the answers. I had four years of badly taught and badly learned French when I was in high school, and then, apart from a trip one summer in college that included France (and dare I say Belgium or Brussels?), I did not use my French at all in Oberlin, San Diego, Texas or Vermont.

I would not have applied for the job at McGill had I not been assured that I could get by in English. I know my limitations pretty well. I have had problems learning three languages (four, if you count English), so I was assured that I would be teaching in English. Students at McGill can do their work in either of Canada's official languages, which means that I pass on the French papers/exams to teaching assistants. The only difficulty is when the rare graduate student does work in French since all of my undergrad classes have teaching assistants except the honours seminar. My linguistic limitation has meant that I have had to say no to the occasional MA student, but since I supervise more than my share of students, this is a blessing, at least for me. I have occasionally presented my work in front of Francophone audiences but in English.

In terms of life in Montreal, I live a largely un-immersed lifestyle. We chose to live in the suburbs where the population is 1/3 Anglophone, 1/3 Francophone, 1 /3 Allophone (immigrants who probably speak 3 languages). I have both English and French programs on my satellite dish, and watch the English. I see movies in English, I listen to English radio stations (which must play 1/3 or so Canadian content), and, when I go shopping, the person usually says "Bonjour/Hi" and then goes with whichever language I use in my response. When I get stopped by the police and ask if the interaction can be in English (I could probably understand it en Francais, but with a high risk encounter, I want to be sure), the response was once given "I don't have to," but then the cop continued on in English. The tax forms (and parking tickets) are the most bilingual publications of the Quebec government.

Our daughter goes to a private school since immigrants (and Canadians who either were educated in English outside of Canada or educated in French) are not allowed to send their kids to the English public schools. In that school, half of her time was in French from first grade to sixth and now it is dialed back to being just one of many classes that meets for one hour a day or so.

Should I have spent significant time and effort when I first got here to master French? Some of my colleagues have (although, notably, those living downtown and sans children at the time). I am not sure. As a new professor at McGill (a very time intensive teaching position, compared with TTU) with a long commute (also new to me), I felt that I didn't have the time or energy to dedicate to the task. Plus, as mentioned above, I know that I am lousy at learning languages. On the other hand, I might be lousy at languages as I have never excelled in topics that don't interest me, which in middle and high school were: French, music, and art. Indeed, one of the problems with my French experience in middle school was the combination of French and art--projects. Yuck!

Of course, the Quebec readers of my blog will say that I moved to Quebec, so I should learn the native language. And they have a point. However, I never conceived of the move to Montreal as a move to Quebec but a move to Canada (and a move away from Texas). Still, I often feel embarassed when I am in a crowd of folks when the conversation is in French. I can get some of the gist of the conversation, but I know I am missing out. And it is a bit rude to expect everyone to switch to English just because I am linguistically limited.

So, after seven years, will I re-dedicate myself to the task? Aside from consistently playing on a Francophone team on Thursdays each summer, no. I am lazy and I am lame. I don't have a good aptitude for languages, and my attitude is not so good either.

So, when I need some translation, I will have google do it for me, or ask my daughter, who is reluctantly good en Francais.