Because the linguistic majority of Quebec (francophones) which are a linguistic minority in Canada have chosen to use their democracy to give themselves laws that promote and impose the use of French (our official language) on Quebec's population as a whole.
Some would call it mob rule.
Because of the fact that English is such a strong influence and that the absence of laws would clearly play out in the disfavour of French in the long term, these laws are needed to reestablish some form of balance.
Again, a simple solution would be to have the UN gradually replace French and English by Esperanto or some other international auxiliary language. Though French would lose some worldwide power, English wold lose much more power, and so remove the English threat to French while also making French no longer a threat to other cultures. A truly civilized people promotes universal justice, not just its own best interests.
The way I understand it is that the majority in Quebec don't accept the idea of unrestrained multiculturalism. We need some form of cultural standards that structure the many freedoms and responsibilities we have as citizens.
Well then they should have stayed in France. So what you're saying is most Quebecers are no better than most English Canadians in that they want to assimilate the minority indigenous population through the use of political muscle, right or wrong.
Here's an example that doesn't have to do with language. All children must follow the course ''Éthique et culture religieuse'' in classes from primary to secondary school. The idea is that whatever background you are from, you are expected to have a basic understanding of the diversity of religious and cultural trends that inhabit our history and society. Whether you're a Hassidic Jew or an atheist francophone, your child must follow this course and cannot be exempted (at least as far as I know). Are you against this idea?
Not at all, since it
does not impose one religion but teaches about all religions, thus making it universal in nature. French is an ethnic language, not a neutral language like Bahhasa Indonesia or Esperanto for instance.
Do you think this is an attack on individual freedom? Perhaps it is. But I don't personally care because I don't view individual freedom as an ideal that should prevail over democratic choices of a collectivity.
I can agree with the will of the majority to a degree. But a line is crossed once it becomes tyranny of the majority or mob rule. Again, English Canadians are just as guilty of this, don't get me wrong. But I cannot excuse French Canada just because English Canada is just as bad.
And I think it's very good idea that all children be exposed to this information. Of course, this raises the question of when majority rule becomes mob rule and it's a very complex issue. But it's clear to me that the idea of individual freedom ought to be balanced out by the idea of collective choices. My individual freedom may be hindered by the law that says I can't go through a red light as I drive on the road. But most of us accept as a collectivity that in many occasions, individual freedom does need to be hindered for the benefit of the collectivity. The devil is in the details of course!
In terms of choosing whether you drive on a red or green light, that is an imperative necessity to have all agree on one. When it comes to language though, while a common language is needed, it ought to be as unintrusive as possible, and an easy to learn language would intrude far less on indigenous languages than a difficult one like French, thus putting all on a more equal footing.
So coming back to language laws, I can't deny that the majority in Quebec is imposing French on many citizens who would probably not bother about it in the first place. But we also impose many other laws that don't have to do with language. All countries have different laws and have a different balance between the legal do's and don'ts and that's what democracy is at the end of the day... majority rule. If you have a better system I'd like to hear about it.
Again, the difference is in the will of the people. In Indonesia, over 40% of the population speaks Malay as a mother tongue. So why did they choose Bahasa Indonesia instead even though less than 1% speak it as a mother tongue? Simple. Because it was an easier language and so a rational choice to put all on an equal footing. The Malay could have tried to flex their muscle like Canada and Quebec did, but obviously at least on that front they're a little more civilized than we are.
