I think one difference is in linguistic political culture. When it comes to language policy, English-speakers are at least comparatively far more liberal-minded than French-speakers, probably due to a combination of nostalgia for the past greatness of French and the threatened dominant status of French today which has resulted in a heavy-handed reaction against the decline of its dominance.
Though I'm a native French-speaker myself, I've been strongly influenced by the relatively more linguistically libéral English culture.
That said, that culture is under attack too with English-speakers in Richmond trying to impose English onto shops in Richmond.
Part of the problem on both sides (especially the English one) is a sence of entitlement to be served in my language, something that is far less prevalent in the allophone cultures.
Compare Indonesian culture for example with over 100 languages and the Malay representing over 40% of the population. Instead of imposing their own language they went with Bahasa Indonesia, spoken by less than 10% of the population as a mother tongue and 1% as an only language. Why? Because it was an easier language to learn.
In other words, the Malay willingly abandoned their right to their language in favour of an obligation to learn a second.
In some respects, I do find the English insistence that they need not learn a second language and the world should bowbto English to be a major part of the problem, but Quebec's reaction to it in trying to impose French on everyone in Quebec is equally wrong.
Why couldn't the English meet Québec half way? While their could be many ways of doing so, here's one possible hypothetical scenario:
The ministries of education of the majority English-speaking provinces allow Esperanto (which is from five to ten times easier to learn than English or French) to fulfil the second-language requirement for highschool graduation. Because Esperanto is so easy to learn, a dull student could master it by the end of high school after taking core Esperanto with no need for immersion but maybe intensive Esperanto for the absolute weakest students with learning disabilities.
Ministries of Education could then negotiate with their counterparts in Quebec, Nunavut, reserves, and US border states to allow Esperanto to fulfil the second-language requirement in their schools too to allow their populations to communicate with each other. Canada could even include the allowance for Esperanto to fulfil the second-language requirement for highschool graduation a part of any future trade deal.
In more bilingual areas such as Moncton or Richmond, local government could require local businesses to use either the dominant local language or Esperanto if they insist on imposing any language law on the private sector.
Since everyone would know Esperanto, no one would feel left out.
In agreement with interested provinces, Federal Government could gradually replace English and French by the dominant local language and Esperanto.
Such a policy could alleviate French feats for their language at least somewhat and so possibly reduce the intolerance they often express against non-French-speaking Anglos, indigenous Quebecers, etc.
But we can't blame it all on Québec. Anglo unilingualism and a certain sence of Anglo entitlement contributes greatly to the French sence of entitlementand authoritarianism in Quebec.
They feed off of one another.
Canadian government promotion of English language instruction abroad through CIDA and Canadian heritage doesn't help either.
Also if you want to promote national unity, Esperanto could help there too.
Québec can't separate without splitting it's borders without gaining the support of its indigenous peoples.
Why should Quebec be a nation where two different cultures exist side by side?
Why is it that Quebec should agree to share his space with another culture while the rest of Canada has always refused?
Let fall a little while hypocrisy and say things as they are. It is impossible for Quebecers to ignore the culture and language of Canada in the ROC. It is impossible to live there, entertain there, work there and study in French. The disappearance of French in the ROC is not a coincidence. Canada has done everything since the beginning of Confederation to ensure an overwhelming preponderance of English everywhere. Why today blandly ask that Quebecers do not do the same to their own culture on their own national territory? By what principle?
To clarify, even Japan is not totally homogeneous. It has the Aunu to the North and Koreans on the East Coast. And Japan is not a good model since it generally ignores their rights.
Then we have Indonesia with over 100 languages. The Makay represent over 40% yet chose Bahasa Indonesia which is spoken by few as a mother tongue because it was an easier common language to learn.
Now that's magnanimity and kindness on the part if the dominant culture. That's a model from which Canadians can learn.
The Hungarian Constitution is another model. Hungarian sign language is an official language of the vonstitution and Hungary's almost non-existent minorities also enjoy significant rights considering their representation.In second language learning too it is a model.
So why would Québec want to stoop do low as to outdo English Canadian bigotry? Why not look for a better model elsewhere?
