kenmore kenmore:
uwish uwish:
my argument is that if a culture is good, healthy and important it will survive on it's own without any mandated 'love French or be fined' type laws.
It it can not survive on its own, then perhaps it shouldn't
Your statement sounds good on the surface.. but sociologists would have a good time picking it apart. The reason behind bill 101 in Quebec is loss of language and culture by immigration or assimilation. The same could happen is places like BC where the influx of a multitude of immigrants have a profound effect on the population. Where the numbers warrant the language of choice would be their native tongue. This would suppress the mother tongue of the indigenous people ( ie natives) and in the case of Canada through its founding nations (post native) english or french. And to protect themselves and survive in a mostly English speaking north america Quebec developed the language law.. and its a good thing.. n'est pas?
Again I don't really buy that argument either why? because Qc controls its OWN immigration. It is the only province that does, you can not pass laws on one hand that say you must do this, and that and be more french and then, have the very system that is accepting these 'undesirable' immigrants.
Then the province goes around using that argument as a bat to beat more money out of the feds, see we are loosing our identity. Well the province controls it!
I have said that many times before, you can't have it both ways. You can't bitch and scream about the French culture on one hand and then re-enforce the same system you complain about but doing the opposite with the other hand.
It is just a ploy to gain political suckage and get more money.