AngryFrenchGuy

Howard Galganov Has a Legitimate Case.

with 91 comments

Howard Galganov has a legitimate case.

The self-proclaimed language rights activist has embarked on a campaign against the Ontario township of Russell’s bylaw that requires all businesses in the area to have bilingual signs in both French and English.

The rule was adopted after a series of incidents where Francophones of the township complained that local businesses, notably the governmentally-operated Beer Store, had english-only signs. Russell township is about equally French and English.

Mr. Galganov’s problem with the legislation is that, according to him, it limits his freedom of expression, a freedom protected by the Canadian Charter of Human Rights.

Not only does it deny him the right to put up signs in English only, he rightly points out that it denies area francophones the right to put up signs only in French, should they choose to do so.

The idea that commercial signs are a form of personal expression and therefore a protected form of speech is controversial, but it has nevertheless been recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada during the various challenges to Québec’s sign law.

Howard Galganov has a perfectly legitimate case.

It’s not a very strong one, though. The Supreme Court of Canada has said that commercial signs are a protected form of speech, but it also said that they could be regulated. Québec’s amended sign law, for example, which allows English and other languages on signs as long as French is predominant, is perfectly constitutional.

It’s hard to see how mandatory bilingual signs would not be. As Ontario’s French-language services commissioner said: “As a constitutionalist, I am really curious to see what their arguments will be.”

We will all find out when he pleads his case in the courts. Mr. Galganov and his supporters will present their arguments and explain in what way their rights are being violated. The defenders of the bylaw, starting with township mayor Ken Hill, will explain why the law does not unfairly limit anybody’s rights. An impartial judge will decide.

Democracy. Rule of law. Justice. The system at it’s best.

Howard Galganov has a legitimate case. Unfortunately, that is not the case he is fighting.

Using the Russel township bylaw as a pretext, Howard Galganov is waging war against democracy and a group of individuals singled out because of their language: francophones.

Howard Galganov is not a resident of Russel township. He only rented a storefront there and became a member of the chamber of commerce on June 18th, several days after announcing he would challenge the bylaw in court and months after he started his campaign against it.

Howard Galganov does not believe the people of the township have the right to decide for themselves what laws meet their own community standards. Nor is he merely supporting local opponents of the law. He is forcing himself and his ideas into someone else’s family affair.

That, however, is a minor detail compared to the much darker side of his crusade.

Apart from the legal challenge to the bylaw, Howard Galganov is financing a vast public opinion campaign, which is is a perfectly legitimate thing to do.

As part of this campaign, Mr. Galganov is calling for a boycott of all French-owned businesses in the area.

Now, by all accounts, the bylaw is controversial in all parts of the township, including within the French-speaking community. The bylaw’s champion is mayor Ken Hill, an anglophone. The law was voted by the democratically elected representatives of the township, both French and English.

Yet, Howard Galganov asks his supporters to punish only the French-speaking business owners. Only those who speak French, regardless of the fact that they could individually be supporters or opponents of the bylaw. Regardless of the fact that they could be members of the chamber of commerce that opposes the bylaw.

Howard Galganov asks his supporters to ignore the actual language of the signs, to look only at the surname on it. According to him Raynald Godin of Godin’s Hardware should be punished for being a Godin, even is his sign is in English, French, Tagalog or any combination thereof.

A boycott of Russell township francophones in protest of a municipal bylaw is the same thing as boycotting Anglo-owned businesses in Montreal to protest the decline of French in Montreal regardless of how these individual businesses treat their francophone patrons. It is the same thing as boycotting all Jewish-owned businesses to protest Israël’s occupation of the west bank, regardless of these individual business-owners’ opinion, if any, on Middle-Eastern geopolitics.

This singling out of one group for blame, ostracizing and punishment
only the basis of their ethnic, linguistic or racial origin is
something very sinister that has a variety of names. Names Mr.
Galganov is very familiar with as he is very fond of claiming he is the
victim of such logic and activity.

Howard Galganov was contacted in the course of writing this post. His response was: “I usually never turn down interviews (French or English), but your articles have been unfair, dishonest and insulting. Therefore the answer is no.”

Since I did offer him an opportunity do defend his position, he can’t call me unfair or dishonest anymore. As for insulting, he’ll have to get used to that.

Bookmark and Share

Written by angryfrenchguy

June 19, 2008 at 2:51 pm

91 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. As silly and potentially divisive as I find these sign laws to be, I do think that Galganov has crossed the line here. He is just throwing fuel on the fire in a place that didn’t ask for him to show up and play the demagogue, which he is good at doing.

    Geo

    June 19, 2008 at 10:44 pm

  2. “The USA should also pass a law mandating English as America’s only official language.”

    – galganov (http://www.galganov.com/editorials.asp?ID=766)

    quebecois separatiste

    June 19, 2008 at 11:56 pm

  3. Howard Galganov is likely correct on the issue of the bilingual signs being forced upon the business community in this area…Obviously, he has support in the area with the local Chamber of Commerce who were opposed to the by-law.

    On the issue of boycotting french business interests he is totally wrong….this will work against what he and others are contesting; the concept of individual free rights whether they be franco or anglo in nature.

    Too bad, after much history that we cannot get by thew issue of language in this country…..But then again…look at the federal programs that are contributing to the division.

    Just look at this website and the postings thereof….with the hurtful message it sends to anglos in Canada. (Sorry AGF…your belittlement of the English language is somewhat a contradiction by our own words) It would appear that if you dont speak french in Canada you are a second class citizen.

    In the end…issues such as this will end in the separation of Canada into french and anglo regions which will not be good for either group.

    Have a nice day….vous avez le bon journee.

    I likely messed that one up too…I didnt consult my french wife !!!!

    ABP

    ABP

    June 20, 2008 at 12:54 am

  4. Just because someone has a case that a court might be willing to hear doesn’t mean that the cause or motives are noble.

    As AFG alluded to, the Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled that Quebec’s sign laws making French predominant are an acceptable compromise given the precarious status of French on the North American continent.

    Various pieces of Canadian legislation that are on the books that refer to the equal status of French and English in Canada have also been successfully used by Franco-Ontarians to fight to save the Montfort Hospital when it was threatened by the Ontario government. (Even though the law didn’t explicitly refer to institutions like hospitals.)

    Given that Canadian legislation and constitutional law are highly favourable to the use of both French and English, it’s highly unlikely that he’s going to get anywhere fighting a bylaw that promotes the sacrosanct linguistic duality, especially since no languages are being banned in Russell Township. It’s a prescriptive rather than a restrictive measure.

    And of course, everyone knows where Galganov is coming on this one anyway. As we’ve said elsewhere, he clearly thinks that some people in this country that he views as being superior are entitled to dominate others, and wants to preserve at all costs the traditional dominator-dominee relationship that he sees is slipping away.

    Acajack

    June 20, 2008 at 9:35 am

  5. One more point:

    I do hope that people realize what Galganov’s ultimate goal has been since he has moved to Ontario. He is no Canadian patriot, or at least not a patriot of the Canada that we know. His writings have evolved to the point where he says that Quebec is a hopeless case and a barrier to the edification of the rightfully English-speaking, conservative (right-wing) Canada of his dreams. Basically, Quebec is a hopeless case, and he’s written it off. He does not want francophones in his country, unless they are lame-duck francophones he can pat on the head, who know their rightful place and always enthusiastically (perhaps even apologetically) switch to English “when spoken to” in polite company. That’s why he moved out of Quebec, because he knows full well that his vision is a non-starter there.

    If anything, he is probably hoping that this whole Russell kerfuffle will be widely covered by the media in Quebec, and convince even more Quebec francophones that many in the ROC are anti-French rednecks allergic to even the slightest bit of French, that there is no hope for French to survive in this country and, in the longer term, that this will bring about the separation of Quebec from Canada.

    Make no mistake. He is no friend of Canada as we know it and the country that many people here love passionately.

    Acajack

    June 20, 2008 at 10:10 am

  6. Hey kids,

    Howie wrote me another email avoiding the tough questions. Here you go:

    “Very good article if it were accurate.

    When you build a house, the most important first step in the construction is building a sound foundation that will carry the weight of the entire structure. Same thing with an editorial.

    You base your entire premise on the “governmentally-operated beer store”. So if your premise is a lie, it stands to reason that the rest of it can’t be trusted either. The Beer Store is a private enterprise that has nothing whatsoever to do with any level of government. It is a private corporation jointly owned by the beer companies.

    You also sort of forget that language and culture are in the exclusive domain of the provinces; not cities, townships, towns or villages. So what standing do they have under the law?

    Also, for a guy who likes to call me a coward for not wanting to be interviewed by someone of your stature, or rather lack thereof, at the very least I attach my name to EVERYTHING I write, do and say.

    I certainly can’t say the same about you, unless your parents named you Guy Angry French Guy. Strange name don’t you think?

    Thank you for sending me this drivel, I’ll use some of it, certainly in one of my future editorials as an example of the mindset the rest of Canada must deal with.”

    Really? Was the Beer Store the foundation of my entire argument?

    And for the nostalgic, head over to the letters section of galganov.com where he publishes a letter from our good friend Tony Kondaks. Then count the errors and inaccuracies in Tony’s letter.

    Fun with fascists. Good times.

    angryfrenchguy

    June 20, 2008 at 12:26 pm

  7. Beer Stores in Ontario are a privately-run, government-sanctioned monopoly. You can’t really buy beer anywhere else but at a Beer Store.

    Acajack

    June 20, 2008 at 12:48 pm

  8. Hi,
    Here is a (long) comment on the kind of position people such as Galganov try to defend. It doesn’t concern the Russell case per se: More so the philosophical line of attack that is commonly used against Quebec language laws. But it can be extended to similar cases, such as this one (I haven’t taken the time to look at the details).
    Here goes, for your considerations.


    One very fruitful line of analysis when trying to understand what oppose the French and English, both here and more traditionally, in Europe, is to consider how Anglo-Saxon political philosophy is centered almost solely around liberalism; whereas the Latin-Catholic outlook always tries to balance individual and collective rights.

    Durkheim, I believe, was the first one to say it. He perceived that there was a fundamental divide between the Protestant (individualistic) and Catholic (more communal) outlooks. But many latter sociologists and philosophers have roughly come to the same conclusion.
    (The most recent example I read was in « A declaration of interdependence », by Will Hutton. Fascinating book.)

    Anglo-Saxons tend to perceive society as not much more than a collection of individuals who happen to reside on a given territory, who enter into private contracts with each other and who compete against each other in a free market. And the only socle on which to base rights are individual freedom and liberties, individual ownership, as well as the pursuit of happiness through unhindered personal endeavors.
    In all logic, the only justifiable social restriction to these liberties is when an individual’s actions impedes on another’s rights. And hence the sole value of the State is to regulate so that individuals respect each other’s liberties, intervene so that private contracts are honored, so that private property is respected and so that the market remains free.
    Consider philosophers like Locke or Leo Strauss: Influential in Anglo-Saxon countries. And, pushed to its limits, someone like Robert Nozick.

    The Latin-Catholic outlook, on the other hand, will more readily agree that there are such things as collective possessions and collective rights: Items that are considered to belong equally to all members of society, including future generations, and that should be nurtured by the State in the name of the democratic majority.
    The “social contract” here is perceived as much more than simply preserving individual liberties: It also includes a component of “responsibility” on the part of the individuals towards the collectivity.
    From that perspective, it can be justified to curb individual rights and freedoms when it is perceived that they endanger something that is valuable to the group as a whole.

    I’m oversimplifying, of course. -Debates occur within different groups, and all Anglo-Saxon societies are not equally liberal (Americans tend to be more libertarian than Canadians or the British, for example). Also, all Latin societies are not as socialistic, nor will they always readily curb liberal values.
    Nevertheless, in my opinion this difference in outlooks can explain a lot of the misunderstandings that oppose us.

    Look at a recent example: Banning the Muslim veil in French schools.
    Even if it is a hot debate topic even over there, ultimately it makes sense, in a French mindset, to curb some people’s right to dress as they please and express their religious beliefs, since it is perceived that the secular nature of the State is a collective right that must be upheld and protected for the benefit of all. Ultimately, even if it steps on some people’s feet, it is considered that only in a strict secular state can people of all religions coexist peacefully. So, long term, it is better to restrict some individual choices.
    Imposing such a restriction makes less sense in an Anglo-Saxon context. And indeed trying to pass such legislation would meet a lot more opposition in countries like England, (English) Canada or the U.S., if it is considered at all.

    To come back to language laws.
    Most often Anglophones who criticize Bill 101 will take the “individual rights” line of defense: « It’s a store owner’s sacred right to put up a sign in whatever language they want ». Or: « Only parents should be left to decide what school their kids attend ». And imposing French is seen as authoritarian (if not outright fascist).

    The Francophone view is that the French language is a valuable heritage for Quebeckers that should be upheld and preserved by the State, in the name of the democratic majority and for future generations. Imposing restrictions such as bilingual signs and having to send your kids to French school does protect that (endangered) collective value ― the democratic majority’s ― while not denying individuals’ or minorities’ liberal rights. Furthermore, it helps social cohesion through fostering a common public language, as well as through reducing “ethnic” tensions and resentment which arise when a minority imposes its views and customs upon a majority (as was the case before).

    -It does “curb” the rights of those who’d rather conduct all their business in English: But it doesn’t “deny” them. Keeping Anglophones from sending their kids to school, or banning Anglos from owning stores altogether would.
    It is, in a Francophone outlook, a balance between the majority and minorities, and between collective and individual rights.

    While we take the liberal outlook into consideration when drafting such laws, their opponents would do well to consider that there actually is a rationale behind what the Quebec population and its gvt. do.
    Also, Anglos would do well to consider that they are not as strictly liberal as they portray themselves: If it were so, there would be no nationally imposed curriculum in schools, and no progressive income tax systems, for example.

    But, as it is, many Anglos find it more convenient to describe Quebeckers (or the French) as being anti-democratic: Communists, Fascists or even Nazis… (Same deal with the mayor of Russell, it appears.)
    In doing so they are either failing or unwilling to consider that there are different conceptions of democracy than the Anglo-Saxon more strictly liberal one.


    PS- For those who read French, I have fished out an old article by Josée Legault on the subject: « La défense voilée des droits collectifs ». Very interesting.
    http://archives.vigile.net/pol/anglo/jlvoile.html

    Raman

    June 20, 2008 at 4:01 pm

  9. Many Anglo-rights activists are quick to call any measure designed to protect or favour one language (usually French in the North American context) “social engineering”, “anti-liberal”, “anti-market” and generally as obstruction to the choice free citizens would make were they left to themselves.

    Interestingly, those same people do not consider that Québec’s publicly funded English School boards are a form of “social engineering”. The same could be said about the legally protected right of Anglos to health care, tribunals, laws, airwaves, social services, leases, contracts, the federal Official Languages Act, etc… etc… etc…

    angryfrenchguy

    June 20, 2008 at 4:29 pm

  10. AGF,

    Would you consider yourself a separatist?

    ABP

    ABP

    June 20, 2008 at 6:11 pm

  11. Good points Raman.

    Of course, this very liberal view of relations between people (and, most importantly for this discussion, peoples) is inherently self-serving, as anglos have throughout history controlled the power strings pretty much everywhere they have settled in significant numbers (either as an absolute demographic majority or as a dominant minority).

    So it’s easy to favour absolute freedom when most everything that’s been put in place over the years favours, to the point where it appears almost natural now, the expansion of your group and its privileges.

    The classic example of course is the Quebec language law issue you have used as an example. The law’s opponents know full well what would happen without the law, and disingeneously claim that nothing would change without them, and that French would “naturally” predominate anyway. Sure…

    Acajack

    June 21, 2008 at 5:57 am

  12. ABP

    Separatist? I think of myself as Indépendantiste.

    angryfrenchguy

    June 21, 2008 at 8:40 am

  13. “Separatist? I think of myself as Indépendantiste.”

    Is there a difference??

    ABP

    ABP

    June 21, 2008 at 10:54 am

  14. Well, than a long dialogue and post from before to explain to me that in fact “your are in favor of an Independent Quebec “” Indépendantiste.””” separate from Canada.

    It is interesting that you and Galganov are really on the same side of the fence (so to speak)…and are seeking a common goal. You from inside Quebec and Galganov and company outside of Quebec.

    ABP

    ABP

    June 21, 2008 at 1:55 pm

  15. Howard has come to embrace the entire argument of the ultra-nationalists, complete with the visceral hate of the other.

    I cannot stand any kind of flag-wavers, [insert country name] love it or leave it patriots, national anthems signers, and all those people who are very well represented on both sides of the unity debate.

    I have come to the conclusion that the best way to empower the people of Québec in the peculiar sociological and geographical situation they are in is an independent state, to the extent that there is such a thing as independence in the globalized world.

    I don’t accept the name separatist because it places the entire burden of of justifying the “undoing” of Canada on me. If I call you an annexionist, all of the sudden you’re the one who has to justify why Québec should stay…

    angryfrenchguy

    June 21, 2008 at 3:20 pm

  16. “Interestingly, those same people do not consider that Québec’s publicly funded English School boards are a form of “social engineering”. The same could be said about the legally protected right of Anglos to health care, tribunals, laws, airwaves, social services, leases, contracts, the federal Official Languages Act, etc… etc… etc…”

    You can in effect call some of these forms of “social enginieering”. But how is it social engineering for an English speaker to be able to get an education in English?

    Anonymous

    June 22, 2008 at 4:23 am

  17. Most laws are a form of social engineering.

    I can make the point that paying taxes, not been able to smoke at work, talking on my cell while driving or not been able to drop out of school at 10 years old infringe my personal freedom.

    To a large degree the collectivity impose certain rules on the individual for the benefits of all.

    quebecois separatiste

    June 22, 2008 at 6:28 am

  18. “But how is it social engineering for an English speaker to be able to get an education in English?”

    Because in Québec and Canada an Arab-speaker cannot get an education in Arab. A Hindi-speaker cannot het an education in Hindi. A Mandarin-speaker, etc…

    There is no such thing as free choice of the language of education in Canada. In English-Canada you have the choice between French and English. Period. Only two languages were deemed acceptable for education.

    Why is it OK for Canada to tell newcomers that the common language and the language of education can only be English or French (and we all know that the number of immigrants joining the Francophone community in the ROC is insignificant) but if Québec says the same thing about French it’s social engineering?

    Why is there a complete English language education system in Québec? Because in 1867 it was socially engineered into th constitution that Protestant Quebecers would have a constitutionally protected right to a publicly funded school system, no matter how many or little Protestants lived in the province. No such guarantee was given to Francophones in the rest of the country.

    And then French was only really recognized a “right” in the rest of Canada when Québec started putting limits on who could access English schools.

    All this is OK. Whatever works for a community. But don’t fool yourselves into believing Canada is not doing exactly the same thing it says Québec should not be allowed to do. Please!

    angryfrenchguy

    June 22, 2008 at 9:18 am

  19. Well, if we take Quebecois Separatiste’s premise that most laws are a form of social engineering (a reasonable premise in my opinion), then Angry, you are not saying much by asserting that Canada is doing the same as Quebec. As it is, they are both entities that pass laws, and therefore practice social engineering. Like every other government in the world.

    I am not sure however, that there is an English language education system in Quebec because of an 1867 law. I believe that law provided for school systems based on religion (Catholic and Protestant) and it was only changed in the 90’s to a French/English division. I think there has been a demand for English education and the system would have been formed regardless of the BNA Act.

    If I understand your argument correctly, you bemoan the fact that Anglos have a constitutional right to an English education in Quebec, but Francophones only have the “right” to a French education in the ROC. I fully agree that an English education should not be guaranteed in Quebec, but if the right in the ROC is maintained, is this such a big difference in practical terms? And it would seem to me then that Francophones are doubly disadvantaged because in ROC, they don’t have the consitutional guarantee to a French education (although for the most part they currently have the choice between French and English) while in Quebec, they do not even have a choice.

    Anonymous

    June 22, 2008 at 10:48 am

  20. “I have come to the conclusion that the best way to empower the people of Québec in the peculiar sociological and geographical situation they are in is an independent state, to the extent that there is such a thing as independence in the globalized world.”

    Isnt this what Howard and company would like to see happen..Canada without Quebec…..perhaps Howard has issues with Quebec, but than you have similar feelings towards the anlgo majority by your past commentary. As I said, although perhaps motivated by different factors you fundamentally agree with Galganov regarding the issue of Quebec secessation from the Dominion.

    “I don’t accept the name separatist because it places the entire burden of of justifying the “undoing” of Canada on me. If I call you an annexionist, all of the sudden you’re the one who has to justify why Québec should stay…”

    Call it what is is, independiste, separatist, etc …The end is the same. Quebec independence is the goal. I am thinking you want to blame the separation or independance on others and not those the make the decision.

    I doubt you would ever have to call me an “annexionist” as I am totally in agreement that Quebec should leave Canada and form their own independent state. This would no doubt be beneficial to all of us. Note I am not giving you the typical ROC reasons for staying (you are linguastially stronger in Canada than by yourselves, what would you do without the subsidies from the ROC etc etc) which is what a lot of federalist anglos (and francos) convey to Quebec residents.

    It is really as Reed Scowen best puts it in the title of his book “Its time to say goodby” Dont you agree AGF. Canada would be a better place and I am sure Quebec would do just fine.

    ABP

    ABP

    June 22, 2008 at 10:47 pm

  21. “You can in effect call some of these forms of “social enginieering”. But how is it social engineering for an English speaker to be able to get an education in English?”

    To follow up on AFG’s comments on this, in general Anglo-Saxon liberalism has not traditionally favoured separate educational (and other) institutions for diverse groups that make up society, even historically established ones. This is why all public schools in places like Ireland and Scotland taught in English, rather than in the original languages of these places. Same thing with the U.S.: no public schools in Spanish in the southwest, nor in French in Louisiana and northern New England.

    Of course, liberalism is flexible enough to allow anyone to set up their own private scholols and institutions in other areas, provided they are willing to pay for it. But the public “institutions of convergence” remain centred on the collective (anglo-conformist) identity to be promoted.

    In the case of English schools in Quebec, this is an arguably self-serving (for Anglo-Quebecers) exception to the ideology of liberalism that many members of the community nonetheless often continue to espouse in the sign law debate. Very few places in the world have a bona fide separate, publicly-funded education system (all the way up to university) for a group that only makes up 8% of the population, even a historically established one. Of course, this exceptional status is not lost on Canadian francophones, who have over the years painstakingly used the Anglo-Quebec example to construct a school system across the rest of the country, once again in spite of rather small population percentages.

    A strictu sensu interpretation of liberalism in its traditional form in Quebec and, say, Ontario, would see French only public schools and institutions in Quebec and English only in Ontario. Or, more provocatively in a pan-Canadian perspective, English-only schools and institutions across Canada, including Quebec, based on the premise that English is by far the majority language of the country taken as a whole.

    Acajack

    June 23, 2008 at 8:13 am

  22. hmmm
    The rules was adopted (try the rules WERE adopted, plural).

    I love how every time I blog anything about Quebec some angry french person comes out of the woodwork

    And what do you call The Office québécois de la langue française? It’s aka the language police.

    D

    June 23, 2008 at 3:14 pm

  23. “The rules was adopted (try the rules WERE adopted, plural).”

    Personally, I love how people who probably can’t even muster enough French to order a double-double at Tim Hortons or even say “merci” to a stranger are always quick to nit-pick about little typos made by people who produce pretty eloquent prose in what is actually their SECOND language.

    Madame, auriez-vous maintenant l’obligeance de nous gratifier de quelques mots en français?

    BTW, I read your blog D. Pretty clever move there, moving to Montreal and then being shocked to learn you needed French to land a decent communications job. French?!? In Montreal?!? Whoda thunk it?

    Acajack

    June 23, 2008 at 3:33 pm

  24. “To follow up on AFG’s comments on this, in general Anglo-Saxon liberalism has not traditionally favoured separate educational (and other) institutions for diverse groups that make up society, even historically established ones.”

    Since you are talking traditionally, I am not sure about how this differs from what the other colonial powers did. Did the French, Portugese and Spanish create separate institutions for other groups? It seems like most of what was done historically was either to exclude others from institutions or to try and assimilate them.

    “Very few places in the world have a bona fide separate, publicly-funded education system (all the way up to university) for a group that only makes up 8% of the population, even a historically established one.”

    Off the top of my head, I can think of close to 10 countries where you have different education systems for minority populations. I am sure there are many more. The proportion of these minority groups might be different from 8%, but I do have a a quibbles with the 8% figure:
    – I don’t think the current figure is as important as the figure when the English school system was being set up.
    – I am pretty sure the 8% only includes Anglophones, but there are others who speak predominantly English (or would want to learn it)and would use the English school system.

    And just ignore comments about typos, they are really irrelevant to these discussions.

    Anonymous

    June 23, 2008 at 4:49 pm

  25. Really? 10 countries that generously finance a completely public, kindergarten to university school system? I’d love to see that list. Anyone want to take a shot at it?

    Then, if ever you make it, check how many of the countries of that list finance a school system for a “minority” that represents 97% of the people of their respective continents.

    Then, if there are any countries left on that list, ask yourself how many would continue funding the system if new immigrants were massively demanding to be schooled in the minority system that left them unable to work and function in the majority’s language.

    Really. It’s a challenge. Name 10 countries that have a kindergarten-to-university public school system for a linguistic minority.

    The system has to be:
    a. Accessible to all children.
    b. Accessible in the entire territory.

    Do it!

    angryfrenchguy

    June 23, 2008 at 10:26 pm

  26. The following commentary mentioned by Raman on June 20-08 (above) is incorrect according to a prominent English historian:

    “One very fruitful line of analysis when trying to understand what oppose the French and English, both here and more traditionally, in Europe, is to consider how Anglo-Saxon political philosophy is centered almost solely around liberalism; whereas the Latin-Catholic outlook always tries to balance individual and collective rights.”

    I don’t think so. One reason why the English battled so constantly against domination by the French and the (RC) church is because the RC version of Christianity was/is based on the old Roman idea of loyalty to the Emperor, who was, if not a god himself, at least a bridge to god–a pontif. Sound familiar? The French idea of monarchy followed the same path. L’état çest moi and all that.

    The barons of England, good capitalists all, wanted to rule their own affairs or at least have a monarch who was subject to THEIR influence, not to some religious head in Rome.

    Ultimately, what came out of this conflict (Magna Carta, along with earlier parliamentary ideas) was the idea that the English monarch should be subject to the law and should observe the common law of the land i.e. the will and custom of the people.

    The system in France emphasized obedience to the Pontif and monarch up until the French revolution. The will of the collective was nowhere in sight until then.

    Now, as for the wonderfully benevolent State of Quebec extending its munificence to the few English speaking schools and Universities which still remain, you should know that the English speaking people of Quebec built them and supported them with their taxes. The Province did them no favours and does none now.

    And without money from the ROC, Quebec would have gone under years ago.

    Galganov left Quebec for the same reason that I and over 750,000 others did. (Actually, the diaspora was probably closer to one million.) The reason was that we saw very clearly that we had no future there because the system would be rigged against us. It would be even more heavily rigged had not Galganov and others intervened as best they could.

    Assimilate or leave was the warning, so we left. History has proven that we did the right thing.

    Xpat

    June 24, 2008 at 1:00 am

  27. Xpat,

    By “Latin-Catholic” I didn’t mean medieval blind observance to the Pope. I meant as a cultural substract, and was talking about post-revolution to modern-day (Locke, Strauss, Nozick…)

    I meant as in France and Quebec today are Latin-Catholic, rather than protestant-derived.

    Because you’ve misread that, your whole comment doesn’t really contradict anything I’ve said. In fact, you’re completely besides the point.

    « And without money from the ROC, Quebec would have gone under years ago. »

    Geez, where do they teach you all to repeat that ?

    Could you give us the numbers please ?
    Be thorough : please show us the balance for the last 200 years.

    Raman

    June 24, 2008 at 1:34 am

  28. Correction :
    Instead of the word “substract”, I should have used “substratum”, or “influence”.

    Raman

    June 24, 2008 at 2:56 am

  29. “Then, if ever you make it, check how many of the countries of that list finance a school system for a “minority” that represents 97% of the people of their respective continents.

    Then, if there are any countries left on that list, ask yourself how many would continue funding the system if new immigrants were massively demanding to be schooled in the minority system that left them unable to work and function in the majority’s language.”

    This reminds me of the laws that some towns have set up where they do not allow stores above a certain size so that Wal-mart is the only one affected. The only criteria you are missing is that the name of the country start with the letter Q.

    The thing is, every situation is going to be different and you will always be able find dissimilarities with Quebec for any country I come up with. I was only addressing Acajck’s statement that there there are very few places with separate educational systems for minorities.

    I actually do not believe there should be English language education anywhere in the province, but only where there is demand for it. Although one could make an argument that access to the two systems is unequal and that it is not equal across the province. I know many tend to think “Montreal-centrically” about these things, but if you live in Sorel and want to go to an English high school, you have to spend over an hour and a half each way to go to school in St. Hubert.

    For better or for worse, there is an English school system in place (whether one should be set up now if it were not already in place is a different question). Angry are you suggesting that the English language education system should just be abolished?

    Anonymous

    June 24, 2008 at 11:52 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: