With the Quebec election due September 4, Parti Quebecois leader Pauline Marois seems to be doing all she can to ensure that Jean Charest's Liberals are re-elected for a record fourth time. We all know that Quebec is sensitive on language issues. But Marois' plan to require anyone running for public office to be proficient in French should outrage everyone who believes in democracy.
It's fine to expect anyone applying for a government job in Quebec to be competent in the official language of the province. There's logic in that. But to restrict running for elected office to only French-speakers is arrogant, dictatorial and unnecessary.
Especially unnecessary. Can you imagine in any other part of Canada, someone who was unable to speak English being elected? Unlikely to inconceivable. If you can't speak the language, can't adequately communicate, how likely is it you'd be elected?
True, in the last federal election in Quebec, the NDP got a horde of MPs who were young and politically ignorant -- some of whom could barely speak French.
A lot of them didn't even campaign. Public impatience with the Bloc Quebecois directed a lot of votes to the NDP regardless of who was running and without any knowledge or contact with those on the ballot. A freak federal election.
More than likely in the next federal election, the NDP won't win 57 Quebec seats, regardless of how many of their candidate speak or don't speak French. Marois' plan to freeze out English-only speakers, or Aboriginals who aren't proficient in French, from even competing for elected office reveals a xenophobic dogmatism that's offensive. If a unilingual Urdu-speaker wants to run for office -- let him. If he can't speak the language of the majority, he'll be defeated. Can't Marois see that?
According to news reports, she would even strengthen language laws to prevent francophones from attending English-language junior colleges. This dictum reveals both insecurity and inferiority -- not in French-Canadians, but in Marois herself.
A reality of North America is that if you are unable to function in English, you are automatically at a tremendous disadvantage. Almost second-class. It would benefit every Canadian if we all were fluent in French and English. But we aren't. It's a continuing shame that English schools outside Quebec don't stress the teaching of French to a greater degree.
Right now, a Quebecois fluent in French and English has a considerable advantage over unilingual citizens. Witness Marois' bilingualism. By forcing "French only" on Quebec, people like Marois would make citizens prisoners of their culture, unable to function freely and confidently through the continent.
Fair enough for Quebec to attract French-speaking immigrants to bolster their language interests, but many of these immigrants leave the province for jobs elsewhere. And we know the agony and controversy of language laws to make French more dominant than English. That has already driven some businesses out of Quebec. Often the language police are just plain silly.
But it's the proposal that those without adequate knowledge of French be barred from standing for municipal or provincial elections that reeks of undemocratic intolerance. Jean Charest's Liberals, who have had problems with rebelling students, should win handily on September 4. If not, we'll find out soon enough if Pauline Marois language threats are real, or just rhetoric and pandering.
No anglo nor aboriginal would lose their democratic right to stand election, nor any right for that matter, under this proposal. If they had, I agree that it would have been undemocratic and unacceptable, I said as much and sent an e-mail to the party saying as much. On Québec forums, very few people approved the proposal as initially understood by the media. Even sovereignists and loyal PQ supporters opposed it.
Writing an editorial denouncing this proposal, two days after the PQ has clearly said they do not support it as described, means one of two things:
1- You don't actually follow the news.
2- You decided to ignore the PQ's clarification to fit a narrative of the PQ as a bigoted anti-democratic party.
So really Marois is just preventing the federal NDP example of Quebecers gladly voting for an anglo or anyone who they feel will represent them better than the bloc or PQ.
People shouldn't get worked up about this. Marois is stubborn. She will just make a seperate Quebec regardless of how people vote. What slid out of her mouth is just the tip of the iceberg. She will get it done.
And what kind of representative is one who cannot communicate with the majority of the province?
We are already seeing this, as millennials growing up as unilingual Francophones are already disadvantaged. There was a time that nearly every civil servant in Canada was Quebecois -- certainly camping across the country, about 100% of the parks employees were.
Now, even within Quebec, jobs requiring bilingualism are going to Ontarians (franco-Ontarians and Ottawans) and New Brunswickers. Quebec already does not have enough bilingual employees, and the PQ want to make it worse. This has always been the work of the PQ -- keep the elite global (Parizeau in London, all of them bilingual) and keep the masses "provincial", ignorant, unilingual, lied-to, and xenophobic.
Um, so what exactly is the delineation that makes this supposed difference between these two examples?
Would elected officials in the province of Quebec not also logically need to be competent in the official language of the province to properly communicate with their constituents? Why is it logical for all government workers in the province, but not the leaders of the province? That makes no sense at all.
And somehow Peter Worthington is equating "proficient in French" with "unable to communicate in English" or "French only", which is a fallacious argument.