July 16, 1997
- COMMENT -
Building bridges
by Julius Grey, Special to the Gazette
Anglophones have radicalized since the referendum. The sudden fear that
independence, which had seemed so unlikely, might come about, and the obsessive
preoccupation with language of many members of the Parti Québécois
government have swayed large numbers, perhaps the majority of anglophones,
to take hard-line positions - partitionism, Plan B, demands for freedom
of choice in education, a refusal to accept any status for Quebec other
than one equal province among 10.
Of course, moderation is not always right and intransigence not always
wrong. Everything depends on the circumstances, the nature of the opponents,
the degree of injustice suffered. Churchill was, in retrospect, right to
attack appeasement; Cold-War hawks were wrong to push toward confrontation.
If, indeed, seeking compromise is not always the right policy, it is equally
true that it often is, and that intransigence is not a universally effective
way of resolving disputes. Those who criticize the "lamb lobby"
and make comparisons with appeasers must show that conditions in Quebec
justify such an assessment.
Even a cursory glance at Quebec will show that the objective conditions
that sometimes vindicate hard-liners are absent. Not only is there no sign
of an evil enemy, like Hitler, but it is difficult to see a single, determined
opponent at all. Rather, there is a graduation of views in a completely
democratic context - a situation that calls for discussion, debate and the
forging of new bonds and solidarities.
Most important, despite the occasional nationalist rhetoric and despite
the presence of a sizable group of language hard-liners, francophones as
a whole have not become either radicalized or extremist. Everything points
to widespread moderation and an openness to compromise.
For instance, the language radicals are clearly in the minority, not
only in the population as a whole, but even within the PQ, where they could
be expected to be very strong. They succeeded neither in bringing back unilingual
advertising, nor in blocking the recent concession on eligibility to vote
for English school boards. They did not come close to realizing their desire
to extend Bill 101 to criteria for admission to English-language CEGEPs.
Nor did they have success in reducing the use of English in health care.
In the recent debate on voting for English school boards, the government
was put under pressure to make concessions by the Liberal Party, the sovereignist
teachers' union and by Le Devoir editorial writers. Is this not an indication
that, if they make their point reasonably, and take into account the genuine
and justified fears for the French language, anglophones can count on the
support of many different types of Quebecers, including sovereignists?
This is not to underestimate the pettiness and the stupidity of some
of the sops the government threw to its hard-liners - the removal of many
bilingual signs in hospitals, the idea that Quebec officials should normally
refuse to speak English, the increased power of the language inspectors,
the wrong-headed incursion into the Internet.
Nor is it to suggest that anyone - francophone or anglophone - should
stop combatting this type of regulation, which has as its sole effect the
discrediting of Quebec internationally. But ridiculous laws and regulations
exist everywhere - in the rest or the country, in the United States and
in western Europe. Those who oppose ridiculous or immoral laws in those
jurisdictions do not divorce themselves from the goals and aspirations of
the society or seek to punish it. Rather, they wage a principled moral battle
and seek allies in all groups. Rejectionism can be justified only in extreme
situations that have no relevance here.
A few more factors should be considered. First, although radicals in
both language groups tell many apocryphal stories of discrimination or refusal
to use their language, upon analysis most are found to be untrue or to be
the work of a few ignorant or bigoted individuals who are, unfortunately,
found in all countries and groups. A moment of sober and honest introspection
will lead most bilingual anglophones to conclude that they have not been
the victims of serious discrimination and that their careers were no less
successful than those of comparable francophones. The one issue where a
serious reserve must be made is that of public-sector employment. However,
even on this thorny topic, there seems to be some improvement for the first
time. It is impossible to ignore the growing number of members of visible
minorities in municipal offices, in courthouses and in other public institutions,
even if the statistical evidence is not yet available. It might also be
appropriate to recognize the recent improvement, even if it is not satisfactory,
instead of reiterating the old mantra about an undemocratic and ethnocentric
society.
Indeed, the accusation of ethnocentrism leveled against Quebecers is
becoming tiresome. Quebec nationalism started as ethnocentric. That there
are many ethnocentric nationalists is obvious. But this is a phenomenon
common to many cultural groups in society and, among francophones, at least
in Montreal, it is clearly on the wane. It is sufficient to read reviews
of English books and films in the French press, to consider the number of
mixed marriages, which encounter almost no opposition from francophones,
unlike the situations in several ethnic groups, and, even, to analyze the
composition of clusters of people speaking French on the streets of Montreal,
to see that the previous uniformity and isolation of francophones has disappeared.
When many sovereignists state that they, too, oppose ethnocentricity,
there is no reason to disbelieve them. Instead, anglophones should view
them as allies in the struggle against the remaining ethnocentrists and
against the stubborn pockets of discrimination in the public sector.
Perhaps the principal reason for the radicalization of anglophones has
been the fear of separation. Many have equated all advocates of sovereignty
with ethnocentric nationalists. How else to explain a desire to destroy
what a United Nations agency rated the "best country in the world?"
It is difficult for a federalist like myself to defend the sovereignists;
yet their demonization is clearly unmerited. While opinions vary as to the
number of convinced sovereignists in the population, it is clearly a very
significant one, perhaps half of francophones. In a society with so little
personal animosity and so little real injustice, it is obvious that the
majority of this group is neither bigoted nor anti-English. Their position
may be misguided, but it is not evil. They do not want to destroy this "best
society" but to modify its constitutional structure. It could be argued
that those who want to sacrifice social programs on the altar of deficit-reduction
are more apt to destroy it, since Canada's "No. 1" rating by the
UN is largely the reflection of the social programs.
It is always dangerous to assume that our position is completely right,
and the opponent completely wrong, and that if we do not win overwhelmingly
it is only because of ethnocentric nationalism. Rather, in an open democracy,
federalists should have the courage and the confidence to present their
case to the majority without expressing disrespect for the other side. We
should be confident that federalism can win the hearts of the majority of
Quebecers, as it has in the past, and that the majority will see that a
rupture with Canada would be folly. We should, however, also be prepared
to accept with serenity the consequences of defeat and respect the will
of the society in which we live if it is expressed clearly. Quebec cannot
be held in Canada by force or by litigation, but only by the free decision
of the majority of its citizens. Anglophones have a crucial role in shaping
that decision, both as equal citizens and as participants in the political
arena, and not merely as a hard-line lobby.
A greater degree of integration in Quebec would be useful if anglophones
wanted to play their full role in Quebec. Not that they would have to become
"typical" Quebecers. The end of ethnocentrism means that no one
is typical. But the fundamental preoccupation of Quebecers with the survival
of French in North America is one that should be shared by all.
For instance, it is obvious that freedom of choice in education is not
only practically impossible, but undesirable at present. An acceptance of
this would add great weight to protests against petty language restrictions,
to efforts to persuade the majority that English language and culture are
also part of Quebecers' common heritage, and to the argument that recent
school enrolment figures demonstrate the existence of serious dangers to
the survival of English as well as French. It would help marginalize the
language warriors who still exert considerable influence in the PQ.
Furthermore, no group should be a "one issue" lobby. Federalism
and language rights are important, but they are not the only issue. Social
justice, the environment, health and education transcend the Quebec debate
and permit federalists and sovereignists to work together and, incidentally
to get to know each other.
Working together will convince anglophones to see that sovereignists
are not all ethocentric racists and sovereignists that the perception of
anglophones as unilingual, arrogant and indifferent to Quebec is 30 years
out of date. It may lead the majority to question the entire ideology of
nationalism, which has so permeated Quebec history. The first move would
be for anglophones to reverse the radicalization that has occurred since
Oct. 30, 1995, while continuing to oppose firmly the excesses of nationalism
both in courts of law and in the political debate.
- Julius H. Grey is a Montreal lawyer and a member of McGill University's
faculty of law.
Please see
- Simon Potter in the Gazette Jan 7th 98 on Julius Grey etal
- December 28, 1997
Grey's case signed, sealed, delivered? challenge, on grounds of "absurdity," ...Chinatown had received letters from the commission telling them to make the
French twice as large as the Chinese on their signs.
That too provoked a flood of denunciations even from ardent nationalists like Guy Bouthillier, president of the Société St. Jean
Baptiste, and Bruno Roy, former head of the Union des Ecrivains Québécois.
- December 19
Bad press for sign cops like garlic for vampires by William Johnson
Julius Grey, financed by Galganov, is taking the government to court to argue that the regulations passed under Bill 86 are "absurd" with their demand that the French be twice as large as all other languages combined. We should support the legal battle all the way to the Supreme Court.
- December 19
Shh! Keep it quiet on the language front ... Julius Grey should abstain from throwing himself into a new legal crusade against the
"absurdity" of provisions in the Charter of the French Language governing commercial signs.
At the same time, Grey plans to ask Superior Court to rule on the legality of the prohibition on displaying English signs on trucks and other moving vehicles. ... Julius Grey would be extremely ill-advised to re-open this Pandora's box. ...So if Julius Grey wants to shoot himself in the foot, he's welcome to do so.
- Michel David is a political columnist at Quebec City's Le Soleil.
|
![[Version en Français]](fr.gif){kind=small}
Please phone (514)934-0023 
or e-mail us your thoughts.