Quebec is not a country. English and French are the official languages of the nation. Chosing what language you wish to speak, should be a personal choice, not forced, with threats of being barred from office or public service.
In England? Of course I would.
But this is Canada.
So we're back to what I pinpointed as being the main problem with this language issue, that is, Quebec's dual status as a state within a state. Or if you prefer, Quebec's status as a nation. A nation that's part of a nation is bound to create hierarchical tensions and this is exactly what we're dealing with. This conflict is not about individual rights. It's a tug-a-war of national egos.
Because you'd support a British law stating all children from 5 to 16 must go to an English school, you necessarily agree with the principal that it's OK for the state (as representative of the collectivity) to impose certain choices on its citizens and hinder their individual liberties (at least on that issue). That being said, England is pretty much only English, so the issue becomes very simple and isn't a source of conflict. Mind you, perhaps things aren't that simple... Welsh comes to mind.
Here in Canada there are two official languages so you apply the same logic and say that all children must be educated (at school) in either one of the languages and you focus on one's
freedom to choose between English or French. Yet this ''freedom'' is actually very limited. In the end you've only got
two choices and that's only one more choice than a single one, which is
no choice at all. Basically, we're still hindering the rights of everyone to truly choose the language of scholar education for their children. We all wouldn't tolerate that a community of muslims send their kids to a school where only Arab is taught. My point here is that when Quebec is being accused of hindering individual rights on this issue, the accusation is borderline hypocritical because basically, we're all doing the same thing! We're all applying the common sense logic of ''When In Rome, live like the Romans''. The source of conflict lies in the fact that Quebec is ready to overrule Canadian policy when it comes to language. I stand by my opinion that in the end,
that is what truly enrages the rest of Canada. It is too much of a reminder of how the concept of Canadian nationalism hasn't worked completely.
As I already said, if Quebec already was a country, there wouldn't be an issue. Suddenly, we'd be like England. But we're part of Canada and
that's what makes it all so complicated. Quebec is officially French while Canada is officially bilingual. So who's authority overrules the other? Most of you will say Canada's of course. Canada is a country while Quebec is just a province. But most people in Quebec will say Quebec comes first because their national identity is tied to Quebec first, and then
possibly, Canada. Again, national egos collide.
ROCers can keep on yapping about how their ancestors beat ours 250 years ago, we'll just keep on yapping about how we don't give a ****. As a linguistic minority within Canada, we won't passively wait for our numbers to decline (proportionally speaking) as we gradually lose our influence, which is already happening anyway. It's cute and touching to say Canada is bilingual, but the hard fact remains that francophones represent only about 20-25% of the whole Canadian demography. In a context of clear anglophone numerical superiority (considering our not so subtle neighbour to the south), the risk is simply too real to gradually be swallowed up by the larger context. Language is the backbone of culture and Quebecers know that well. I'm sure First Nations are very aware of this too. So we've taken measures in our own hands to protect it and have given ourselves French as the sole official language of Quebec. We've acted upon this idea and our language laws are the result, for better or for worse.
You've often warned me about the fact that many First Nations in Quebec would be ready to take up arms if they felt their sovereignty would be threatened by Quebec becoming a country. It seems rather clear to me that you think it would be their full right to do so and to a certain extent I actually agree with you. But if you accuse my people of non violently defending our own sovereignty as a nation in the face of what I consider as Canadian interference in our own affairs, than you can expect me to brush off that accusation as I'd brush off a fly. All we're doing is using our own democracy to make the choices that seem best for ourselves. We're not perfect and sometimes are overzealous. But we're also not foolish enough to shut up and smile as the rest of Canada attempts to dictate the choices we need to take for ourselves.