Quebec Language Police Are Mysteriously Drawn to Italian Establishments
- Thread starter no color
- Start date
I must be prudent in my answer because of my limited knowledge on First Nations treaties but I think I'd embrace this as being a good thing. If I believe in measures to protect French, why wouldn't I agree with measures to protect Native languages.... As I already said, I believe the survival of Native culture largely depends on the survival of their languages.
So do you believe it should trump Quebecs Bill 101?
And treaty zones a larger areas around reservation, not necessarily reservation land. It largely encompasses the entire province.
So in other words you're suggesting that Algonquin should be a mandatory language on signs throughout Quebec? What about Cree and Inuktikut? Should they have their Bill 101 too?
,
Yes, the Brits, in hind sight, should have given the French no concessions.
Why not? If the Quebecois can why not the FN?
Nope, just their treaty zones.
In their respective treaty zones.
Sure, why not. A minute ago you agreed. You don't seem to be as supportive now.
Well you just said treaty zones encompassed all of Quebec while at first I understood treaty zones as being reserves. Do you have a map we could use as a reference to clarify this discussion?
Research it..... If your going to post in this thread at least act like you know what your talking about...... Damn
Nope. That's why there's so much unrest when resource exploitation takes place near reserves or around reserves.
The areas surrounding reserves are usually covered as a treaty zones.
Not one readily available. And I may have over stated their size. There might be some areas where French could still be protected.
So, do you still support a First Nations Bill 101?
Considering CDNBear's knowledge of Native issues, don't you think it makes sense that he'd be able to find one much much faster than me?
And I don't act like I know what I'm talking about when I don't know what I'm talking about. Is that what you do?
Let's just say my safe answer is that I'm definitely open to the idea. I'd need more details about how exactly that would work to tell you what I'd really think about it. We're talking about a law that exists in fact vs. a hypothetical law to which I don't know how it would be applied and what consequences it would have.
As far as I'm concerned, Bill 101 shouldn't be applied in reserves at all.
Lets say, for arguments sake, that 50% of the province is covered under one Nations treaty zone or another...
What consequences do you see off the top of your head?
As far as I'm concerned, it should be allowed to exist. But you already know that.
From the discussions we've had I'm suspecting a typo error here!
Well if that means that 50% signs across the province would need to include some Native language or another, I'd tend to think there would be much resistance from the population in general, considering a strong majority of Quebec's population don't use Native language at all. Considering most taxpayers are not Natives, I'd have a hard time imagining how that could pass politically and democratically. I'm not saying this is a good thing. Just stating what seems to me to be the obvious and dirty truth.
If the government were to invest in making all signs ''Native friendly'' than some part of me is thinking Natives ought to be paying taxes like anybody else. But I'm saying that on the top of my head and clearly need to give it more thought.
I'm always messing up contractions, lol.
You mean just like Bill 101.
Me too.
Why? Quebec exists in in entirety because of the payment in land made to the Crown, both French and English, by First Nations.
How much more do you think we need to pay?
Please, take your time, I'd actually like to see what you come up with after mulling it over.
Are you suggesting Bill 101 isn't supported by a majority of Quebecers?
History ain't pretty. Most of it is pretty dirty and North America certainly doesn't escape this state of affairs. I won't deny this land was stolen but I think we'll both agree that nobody here will be taking a ship to Europe because of this. Most of us Canadians were born here and most of us are here to stay. That being said, I don't know what is the ideal way of honouring First Nations and bring some form of healing to the permanent damage done to their culture as a whole. I don't even know if reserves are a good thing. I don't know enough to have a clear opinion. From what I hear some reserves are doing pretty good while others not at all.
I personally don't mind that Natives in reserves don't pay taxes. But I am concerned by what we hear on the conditions of living in reserves. Which causes me to wonder whether or not it's a good thing that Natives are separated as being a different class of citizens.
That could be long!
I'm saying it's draconian and against the Charter.
You can take whatever you want that to say about Quebecer's.
That's fine. You're thoughtful opinions are always worth the wait.
Anyway, S-lone, I just got a response from your Office. I was asking if it would be possible to put up a sign in Gatineau with the Algonquin sign being bigger than French and above it, and here's the response I got:
Monsieur,
Dans l’affichage public et la publicité commerciale, tout message doit être en français. On peut aussi y ajouter une ou plusieurs autres langues (dont les langues autochtones telles que l’algonquin), mais la loi exige que le français figure de façon nettement prédominante par rapport à toute autre langue (article 58), c’est-à-dire que son impact visuel doit être beaucoup plus important. Pour de plus amples renseignements, vous pouvez consulter notre dépliant.
Meilleures salutations
So even the local indigenous language must appear under French, and of a significantly smaller size.
Out of respect for the sender, I've removed his name and contact information, but there you have it.
So, do you agree with this aspect of Bill 101 or do you think it ought to be amended?
I'm thinking of maybe sharing this email with a few others in the next week too.
To clarify, I'm not blaming the office and its staff for this: they're simply bound by the law, end of story. It's the law itself that's the problem or do you support this?
Oops, the happy face did not appear in the email. Canadian Content did that one.
Monsieur,
Dans l’affichage public et la publicité commerciale, tout message doit être en français. On peut aussi y ajouter une ou plusieurs autres langues (dont les langues autochtones telles que l’algonquin), mais la loi exige que le français figure de façon nettement prédominante par rapport à toute autre langue (article 58), c’est-à-dire que son impact visuel doit être beaucoup plus important. Pour de plus amples renseignements, vous pouvez consulter notre dépliant.
Meilleures salutations
So even the local indigenous language must appear under French, and of a significantly smaller size.
Out of respect for the sender, I've removed his name and contact information, but there you have it.
So, do you agree with this aspect of Bill 101 or do you think it ought to be amended?
I'm thinking of maybe sharing this email with a few others in the next week too.
To clarify, I'm not blaming the office and its staff for this: they're simply bound by the law, end of story. It's the law itself that's the problem or do you support this?
Oops, the happy face did not appear in the email. Canadian Content did that one.
the rest of it does clarify that any other language can be added, only that French must be predominant, even above th elocal indigenous language. Again, I'm not blaming the Office for this, but the law itself which the Office is bound to uphold.
As far as I'm concerned, you;d think if they had any sense of compassion for the local indigenous languages which are in danger of extinction, that they'd even say that if a sign included the lcoal indigenous language, then you can do what you want with it.
But no, French must be included, and predominant. Quite insulting really.
But no, French must be included, and predominant. Quite insulting really.