There is plenty of French at the Vancouver Olympics
Walking around downtown Vancouver yesterday I was thinking many things. I was thinking it just might be Canada’s most beautiful city. I was asking myslef if Vancouver was the first city to hold the Winter Olympics in the middle of summer. I was thinking that if I was a crackhead I would also prefer to live in Vancouver than, say, Thunder Bay. I also thought about Pamela Anderson a lot, but the fact that she is from Vancouver was only a pretext.
One thing I wasn’t thinking is : “This is a bilingual city.”
Montréal’s federalist media, Québec’s Premier Jean Charest, the Liberal Party of Canada’s Denis Coderre, the federal commissioner for official languages Graham Fraser, the Heritage minister James Moore are pissed off at Vancouver for not appropriately showcasing Canada only officially approved branding as a billingual/multicultural country during last Friday’s opening ceremonies.
“I am so proud to be a Canadian! It is with great pride that I realized that the organizers of the Vancouver Olympics truly understand the real Canada!”, wrote Réjean Tremblay–in English!–in La Presse. “I am so proud that I had to put some of my emotions in writing in this country’s “superior language” so that the bosses at VANOC would be proud of me.”
See… I don’t get that.
God forbid Vancouver should present itself to the world as what it is: one of the great Pacific cities like Singapore and Hong Kong and San Francisco, born of the fateful meeting of Asia and Great-Britain, of wandering Brits, Punjabis, Cantoneses, Hans, Scots and Malays. A city where English is the common language.
Why do Canadians always feel the need to pretend we’re all living in northern Ontario, hunting moose and speaking bilingual under four feet of snow? Over two thirds of Canadians live on the Pacific Coast and in the Great Lakes area! French and snowstorms are as foreign to the culture of Canadians in Vancouver and Toronto as bullfighting yet English Canadians always seem obligated to pretend they’re living in Kapuskasing!
You hear French all the time in Vancouver. Walking the city yesterday I heard French spoken by squeegee punks on Granville and very chic Haitian ladies on the waterfront. Some fluently French-speaking Anglo hipster on Commercial was able to explain to me how to purchase a six-pack. I even talked French with a Sécurité du Québec police officer on loan to the RCMP.
But I also heard just as much Japanese, Cantonese and Punjabi. I also heard kids who’s roots could have been anywhere in the world speaking English to each other. That’s what Vancouver is: a multicoloured (the concept incorrectly expressed as multicultural in Canadian English) city where people are educated and work in the commonly agreed upon language of English.
Kind of like the society the people of Québec have been trying to build for the last 40 years, except that because it’s being done in English instead of French, British-Columbia it is considered “normal”…
Vancouver is an English-speaking City and its Olympic Games and cermonies reflect that fact. If anything, it’s the Asian aspect of BC culture that is absent from the Vancouver 2010 Olympic branding, not the French language.
Now, let’s just hope that if and when Québec City get’s to host it’s own Olympic games in 2022, the French language will be as visible as English in Vancouver…
AngryFrenchGuy 
Freedom of “hate speech”? Do you have any idea of the absurdity of your implication? The legal threshold for so-called hate speech is far more complex than your superficial musings indicate. Of course, the frogs of Quebec do not share the same commitment to individual rights and autonomy that has traditionally been upheld in the other British colonies. My ancestors gave their lives in two world wars to preserve the rights that people like yourself would evidently relinquish in the name of mindless political correctness. There is nobody who is going to tell me what I can and cannot say without blood being shed!
Brit1
February 19, 2010 at 12:33 am
Le Canada se presente toujours, dans sa tendance ultra-nationaliste délirante, comme un modele de vertu: c’est un vernis. Grattez un peu le vernis et ce qu’on voit apparaitre n’est pas tres joli, comme on peut le lire ci-haut. Comment André power corporation Pratte peut voir le Canada comme un projet en construction, plutot que la déconstruction d’un mythe? En vérité, il n’y croit pas non plus, il est juste la pour rajouter une couche de vernis et pour supplier les intolérants de ne pas parler trop fort, pour ne pas que les quebecois entendent…
Anonymous
February 19, 2010 at 1:01 am
oups, i was the anonymous..
midnightjack
February 19, 2010 at 1:02 am
I for one am all in favour of Brit1’s freedom of expression.
-Please tell us more of your deep, learned and very original thoughts. I’m sure we can all learn a lot from you.
Raman
February 19, 2010 at 1:13 am
“Freedom of “hate speech”? Do you have any idea of the absurdity of your implication? The legal threshold for so-called hate speech is far more complex than your superficial musings indicate. Of course, the frogs of Quebec do not share the same commitment to individual rights and autonomy that has traditionally been upheld in the other British colonies. My ancestors gave their lives in two world wars to preserve the rights that people like yourself would evidently relinquish in the name of mindless political correctness. There is nobody who is going to tell me what I can and cannot say without blood being shed!”
I am not politically correct at all, but that does not prevent me from excluding racial slurs from my definition of freedom of speech.
As for fighting for freedom, you have absolutely no idea about what I or my forebears fought or did not fight for.
For now, perhaps you should lay off the Rambo and Die Hard movies a tad and listen to something other than Toby Keith on your CD player… then maybe you’ll be ready for an intellectual discussion with adults.
Acajack
February 19, 2010 at 9:32 am
ACAJACK:
If I wish to have an “intellectual” discussion this forum will not be my first, or last, recourse. With respect to frog forbears, not only I, but most of the world is well acquainted with the french approach to conflict “resolution”. With respect to your Toby Keith reference, your effete inclinations are clearly evident.
RAMAN:
You could indeed learn a lot however I no better than to cast pearls before swine. Moreover, it seems the majority of “contributors” to this forum already possess all the knowledge they believe is worthwhile, therefore they have no need of enlightenment. This view is very much in keeping with the mantra of tolerance, understanding, blah blah blah for which those of your ilk are well known.
Brit1
February 19, 2010 at 11:39 am
So sad to see that good vocabulary and good manners don’t always go hand in hand, even among those who are descended from (or at least claim to be) the so-called superior race of Albion.
Acajack
February 19, 2010 at 12:48 pm
Brit1: «You could indeed learn a lot»
Of course I could!
I’d heard most of what you’ve said so far before. But somehow, it makes a lot more sense coming from you. So please elaborate.
That comment about your ancestors dying for my freedoms, for example. Ouch! That really struck me!
-My two grand-fathers were working in essential services, so they weren’t drafted. But I do have one great-uncle who fought in WWII. Unfortunately, he didn’t die. I wish he had: Maybe then I’d possess the acute sense of freedom you seem to have.
So I understand I’ll have to rely on you to instruct me.
Please don’t hesitate to tell me more.
Raman
February 19, 2010 at 5:21 pm
Apropos Brit 1’s relating to us his ancestors fighting for our freedom, here’s the interesting tale of former Liberal MNA Maximilien Polak:
Born in the Netherlands, Polak came to Quebec in 1952, obtained a law degree and served as an MNA for the riding of Ste. Anne from 1981 to 1989, at which point Robert Bourassa used his influence to get him appointed as a judge.
You see, Polak voted “yes” on Bill 178, the December 1988 amendment to the race law/hate law Bill 101, that officially suspended freedom of speech and equality rights in Quebec when then Premier Bourassa invoked the “notwithstanding” clause. A long-time resident of Cote St. Luc (in the riding with the highest percentage of anglos in the province), you’d think that Polak would have joined with the other anglo MNAs such as Marx, Lincoln, French, Thuringer, and Doherty by voting “no”. But he voted “yes” which, I must assume, helped him get Bourassa’s okay for his cushy appointment as a judge.
Canadian troops played a large part in liberating Holland. Mr. Polak benefitted greatly from the efforts Canadian troops and people like Brit 1’s ancestors performed as soldiers in liberating him and his fellow Dutch. It is not far-fetched to say he probably owed them his life.
And how did Mr. Polak see fit to reward Brit 1’s family members by their risking life and limb to liberate him? He took away their freedoms and rights when he voted “yes” on Bill 178.
Tony Kondaks
February 19, 2010 at 6:20 pm
As one who has fallen for the trap before, perhaps the original suggestion of Tancrede not to feed the troll is perhaps the best advice.
Just because speech is free, it need not be cheap.
Édouard
February 19, 2010 at 8:03 pm
Brit1: “There is nobody who is going to tell me what I can and cannot say without blood being shed!”
That is not what I did. I merely pointed out that you are being insulting and racist when using the expression “frog”.
Of course, you have every right to say racist things and you have every right to be insulting toward Quebecers and French Canadians.
But we also have the right to say that that makes you a bigot and racist.
This is not an issue about freedom of speech. It’s an issue about you acting like a racist and being called out on it.
Vincent
February 19, 2010 at 8:35 pm
This is a classic “Voltaire” case where what you say is utterly stupid. Still, you have every right to say it.
Vincent
February 19, 2010 at 8:38 pm
“2. A “cheap shot”? Hmm..I do not expect that Pierre Laporte and/or James Cross would have considered the allusion to FLQ terrorism a cheap shot-they would have characterized it as being what it in fact is: accurate.”
Cheap shot because it is irrelevant to the debate about the Olympic ceremony.
It’s a bit like bringing up an Hitler/Nazi reference when arguing with a German about the Irak war.
Vincent
February 19, 2010 at 8:44 pm
Vincent wrote:
It’s a bit like bringing up an Hitler/Nazi reference when arguing with a German about the Irak war.
Speaking of Hitler, you all may be interested to hear Hitler’s position on climate change:
Tony Kondaks
February 20, 2010 at 12:38 am
[Who spends their time clicking those stupid “thumbs up/thumbs down” icons all the time ?…]
Raman
February 20, 2010 at 4:31 am
[groupies? LOL]
edward
February 20, 2010 at 9:46 am
[I guess…]
Raman
February 20, 2010 at 6:22 pm
tony,
does this mean that the epa in the usa will be faced with a constitutional challenge on their declaration of co2 as a toxic gas last year?
does al gore have to give his nobel prize back?
can we stop outfitting busses with bio-diesel fuel capabilities so that people don’t go hungry?
is it really true that polar bear populations have acually increased in the last 30 years?
has the ipcc at the united nations been exposed as a fraud enough for people to admit that global warming was actually a wealth redistribution scam?
and to get back on topic – is it true there is NO mention in the charter of “the right to not be offended”?
my best friend’s wife teaches french to primary school students in vancouver and has done so for the last twenty-five years. business is good – i believe she earns almost 80k per annum instructing young minds on how to parse être.
she’s makes good company at a dinner party even if she believes in catastrophic man-made global warming.
johnnyonline
February 20, 2010 at 7:38 pm
être ou ne pas être.
Is that the question?
Weather! T’is a Nobel err.
In the mind he suffers…
To speak, perchance to meme. Ah there’s the cub…
…alas poor Gore, I knew him well.
edward
February 20, 2010 at 10:42 pm
dearest edward, you know that whatever the question is –
it`s eternal……………….ad infinitum
can we get onto bashing one-eyed leprechauns now?
johnnyonline
February 20, 2010 at 11:06 pm
Comme il est attendrissant de voir deux fédéralistes a tout prix completement paniqués par la réaction anglo-canadienne dans les médias: j’ai nommé Lysiane Gagnon et André Pratte ,de Power Corporation. Que Chantal Hébert mentionne que non seulement le Francais a été absent de la cérémonie d’ouverture des jeux et que plutot que de s’en excuser, la réaction quasi-unanime au Roc a été de blamer les québécois d’etre des québécois, comme d’habitude et depuis des années: on mange une claque sur la gueule, c’est de notre faute et il faut nous injurier en plus.. La dignité autait été de mépriser ces comportements. Au lieu de cela, les évangélisateurs fédéralistes vont se mettre a plat ventre devant le Roc en implorant d’eux un peu plus d’ouverture..C’est pitoyable de lire Gagnon dans le Globe and Mail, ca l’est encore plus de lire Pratte dans le Star. Ce qui ressort de tous ces efforts d’aplaventrisme se retrouve dans le courrier des lecteurs dont je résume quelques grands concepts:
-le Quebec vole l’argent du Roc par la péréquation et ne se plaint que pour en avoir plus.
-il y a deja assez de francais comme ca au Canada/OU
-il n’y a plus assez de gens qui parlent francais au Canada pour s’en préoccuper
-Le Quebec devrait devenir adulte et arreter de se plaindre pour rien
-Nous autres dans l’Ouest on parle pas francais, car c’est le Canada ici
-Le Québec ne mérite pas d’attentiobn spéciale ETANT DONNÉ CE QU’IL FAIT SUBIR DEPUIS DES ANNÉES A SA MINORITÉ ANGLOPHONE.
-A Montréal, de toutes facons, l’arabe est plus souvent parlé que le francais
-Quand ces frogs réaliseront-ils qu’ils ont perdu la bataille des plaines d’Abraham et COMMENCERONT ILS A PARLER CANADIAN
-Pas de francais du tout, c’est mieux: un pays, une langue..
-On est plus capable de les entendre se plaindre…
etc, etc…
Je reviendrai plus tard avec d’autres exemples…Ce que je trouve déplorable est l’absence totale de dignité des Pratte et Gagnon de ce monde, c’est a vomir..
–
midnightjack
February 21, 2010 at 12:27 am
@ MDJ
Well, this is what happens when they force people into a program enforced such as the Official Languages Act. There is little french outside of Quebec and NB(to a lesser degree) as we know. Yes, its an official language of Canada due to PET and company. That being said, it is not in wide use so people don’t perceive it as important. Then, when someone criticizes the lack of French they don’t have any understanding of “WHY”, as to them there is no why or importance.
Very simple MDJ, people in the west don’t view French or the culture as being all that important. When criticized for something they don’t value they look at this as an affront to their own culture and they fire back..as the comments you indicate in your post.
Had Charest, Moore. Fraser etc and the others kept their mouths shut..I doubt it would have been an issue.
ABP
February 21, 2010 at 3:32 am
Correction:
That being said, it is not in wide use so people don’t perceive it as important
Should have been its not in wide use “outside of Quebec”…
ABP
February 21, 2010 at 3:37 am
Charest a zéro crédibilité pour critiquer qui que ce soit, surtout au sujet de la langue ,car depuis qu’il est au pouvoir qu’il garde solidement les deux pieds sur le frein :il veut empecher son electorat anglophone de le déserter, comme c’est arrivé a Bourassa avec la loi 178 qui a conduit a la création du parti égalité.
Cet homme ne fait que son auto-promotion, se pavanant a l’étranger de facon a se faire connaitre au plus de monde possible a l’international. Petit menteur rusé, il attends l’heure de se sauver de Quebec pour aller a un endroit ou on ne connait pas son passé politique.
midnightjack
February 21, 2010 at 8:32 am
ABP: What’s the opinion of the francophones you know about that olympic controversy?
midnightjack
February 21, 2010 at 8:51 am
“ABP: What’s the opinion of the francophones you know about that olympic controversy?”
I can honestly say I haven’t talked with a lot of francophones about this issue. I did mention it to one of my family members who is quite involved in french education here and she indicated that it might have been nice ot have more french but that the issue was blown out of proportion given where the games are being staged.
ABP
February 21, 2010 at 10:45 am
0h00jack: “-Le Québec ne mérite pas d’attentiobn spéciale ETANT DONNÉ CE QU’IL FAIT SUBIR DEPUIS DES ANNÉES A SA MINORITÉ ANGLOPHONE.”
ABP: “this is what happens when they force people into a program enforced such as the Official Languages Act”
While the official suppression of the English language appears to get quite a lot of play outside the province, is it really anything but an excuse there? Does it impact their daily lives in any meaningful way? In fact, it strikes me as only a meaningful issue between Franco and Anglo Quebeckers. Who cares what other Canadians think?
The question that keeps coming to my mind is, given that a moderate majority of Francophone Quebeckers support sovereignty, but that it is strongly opposed by the Anglo/Allo communities, did Bill 101’s more oppressive measures, manage to kill sovereignty even as it protected the French language?
It seems unlikely that the Anglo community would ever strongly favour sovereignty, but did the Allo community get scared off by overzealous measures like 101?
I wasn’t here back then so I don’t really have any feel for what people were thinking in these communities at the time.
edward
February 21, 2010 at 12:19 pm
edward asks:
The question that keeps coming to my mind is, given that a moderate majority of Francophone Quebeckers support sovereignty, but that it is strongly opposed by the Anglo/Allo communities, did Bill 101’s more oppressive measures, manage to kill sovereignty even as it protected the French language?
I think there is a sentiment out there that, yes, Bill 101 made the French language more “secure” and therefore staved off independence. Certainly, there have been numerous articles written by political pundits to that effect.
Here’s an excerpt from an article Montreal Gazette columnist Hubert Bauch wrote on this very subject:
One consequence, unintended by the bill’s authors, is that it ultimately served the federalist cause in Quebec, as its sweeping assertion of French predominance robbed the sovereignist movement of its most compelling argument for separation from “English” Canada.
Camille Laurin acknowledged as much before his death in 1999, as did Curzi this week. “It certainly deprived the movement of an argument, if not necessarily the real basis of the cause,” he said. “But for sure it didn’t help.”
From: http://www.vigile.net/Bill-101-paved-way-for-peace
But I disagree with the premise that Bill 101 “protected French”. Now, before I say anything else, let me qualify that by adding that I have no data or study to back that statement up. I was once taken to task here for having such an opinion without evidence.
Well, such an opinion, by its very nature, can’t really have “evidence”. It’s an opinion on something abstract.
Be that as it may, I believe that you can’t protect a lanaguage by force or legislation. Indeed, by the false impression that legislation protects a language it makes real protection harder because people think it’s being protected by the legislation and don’t put their focus on the real protections.
The only real protection for the French language is:
1) Quebec independence;
2) The complete repeal of Bill 101; and
3) The encouragement in Quebec society that francophones learn English. Knowledge of English is the key for the survival of the French language in Quebec because it is needed for business and, ultimately, the one thing that will protect a culture and language is economic strength.
4) Encouraging anglophones to live, work, invest, educate, and deal with the Quebec government in unilingual English.
Tony Kondaks
February 21, 2010 at 1:43 pm
Tony, You had me until your laundry list at the end. How does Quebec independence protect the French language?
Are you talking about protection of the language as a living, active entity that little children use on the streets or are you thinking in some kind of abstract ethical “purity of French” as a thing to be kept under glass and admired?
Can you elaborate on what an independent Quebec does for the French language that the status quo cannot?
Also, while the idea of 101 “depriving a movement of its argument” makes sense, I was more thinking about the idea that it also entrenched its opponents. It made agonizingly clear that in a democracy, the minority has to put up and shut up. So why should I seek to live in a democracy when my own needs are better served in living in a colony? You get the idea…
edward
February 21, 2010 at 2:09 pm
edward asks:
Can you elaborate on what an independent Quebec does for the French language that the status quo cannot?
It has to do with removing insecurities from the Quebec psyche and freeing Quebcers to be able to expand their use and knowledge of English which, ultimately, is the one thing Quebec needs to protect French.
If Quebec were independent, it would have 100% control over all the section 91 powers that Canada, under the division of powers in the BNA Act, currently controls. Things such as immigration, borders, communications, mobility, etc. Such things impact language and culture and control by Quebec rather than Ottawa would influence those areas’ impact on French.
Now, that’s not a guarantee that French will survive; that ultimately depends on its usefulness and the choice to use it by speakers. But complete sovereignty over everything that nations are supposed to control eliminates any excuse that Quebec now has that some outside power, such as Ottawa or les anglais, has on its culture and language. And this, in turn, should eliminate any insecurities about language.
And once insecurities about language are removed, Quebecers will feel free to use and learn English more and, as a result, as I wrote above, the knowledge of English will ultimately protect the French language by making Quebec and Quebecers stronger economically, the ultimate protection for a language and culture.
Tony Kondaks
February 21, 2010 at 3:18 pm