Krauss: Words Don’t Matter

2023/03/17 Leave a comment

Appropriate note of caution and the need to consider context and interpretation:

At the bottom of the copyright page of the latest editions of Roald Dahl’s books, a new notice now appears. “Words matter … The wonderful words of Roald Dahl can transport you to different worlds and introduce you to the most marvellous characters.”

On the surface, it seems whimsical and innocuous. However, it signals a recent effort carried out by his publisher, Puffin, to rewrite his classic texts to make them less “offensive.” Words like “fat” and “ugly” have been culled, whole phrases rewritten, and, of course, gender-neutral terms have been added in places.

While highly reported on in the media, this rewriting of classic literature is just the most recent manifestation of a central facet of the new dangerous trend to label language as a form of violence, under the guise of the very mantra that introduced the new bastardization of Dahl’s work: Words Matter.

As a writer, one might think I would be more sympathetic to this claim, but I am not. I recognize and celebrate the potential power of words, but I understand that whether this potential is manifested depends completely on the recipient. The pen may be more powerful than the sword, but only if the words reach a receptive audience. There is a fundamental difference between verbal assault and physical assault. The impact of the former, as potentially harmful as it may seem, lies purely in the mind of the listener. Not so for physical violence.

Saying “Words Matter” or “Words have Power” is like repeating the old mantra “Knowledge is Power.” But that doesn’t make any of them true. Knowledge alone confers no power, however much we might wish it were so. Ask most environmental scientists, or reflect on the fate of the ancient Librarians of Alexandria. It is what you do with the knowledge that matters. The same is true for words.

T.S. Eliot also wrote, in his masterful poem Four Quartets 1, “Words, after speech, reach Into the silence.” Words disappear after they are spoken. The only place they may persist is in the mind of the listener. What we do with the words we hear is uniquely determined by a combination of culture, experience, education, and conscious or subconscious reflection. At a very basic level, each of us has the power, at least in principle, to parse and interpret what we hear, and, if necessary, to do so in ways that positively benefit our psyches and our lives, or, alternatively, in ways that may cause emotional pain and trauma.

While Eliot may have also bemoaned the slipperiness of language in the lines from Four Quartets quoted above, part of the power of words at the same time lies in their ability to be imprecise, vague, and even disingenuous. Language must be interpreted, and that opens up a host of opportunities. It is also why we must all interpret what we hear or read.

Noam Chomsky once said to me, when we were discussing religious beliefs, “I don’t care what people believe. It is what they do that matters.” Beliefs can influence actions, of course, and so can words. Words have the power to incite violence, but this depends on the receptiveness in the mind of the listener. The call to jihad may motivate a suicide bomber, but for those whose minds have not been prepared for years through exposure to religious dogma and indoctrination, it falls on deaf ears. Similarly, most of us could see through the lying hyperbole of Donald Trump on January 6th, 2021, but those who then gathered outside the US Capitol Building were already true believers and were primed to act.

Without context and interpretation, and unless one chooses to internalize them, words are impotent, and that gives us power over them, not vice versa. We may be influenced by what we read or hear, but we own our responses, including our actions, which, after all, speak louder than words.

This notion is anathema in the modern world, however, because it implies that if you feel traumatized or offended by what you hear or read, it is primarily your problem to deal with. The trauma may be very real, but the underlying psychological issues and healing processes are ones that you, not others, need to take primary ownership of. You have not been victimized; you have been traumatized. There is a difference.

It is relatively well known that I am an atheist, but I also grew up in a Jewish household. For much of my professional life, neither of these factors made much of a difference. However, that has been changing, due in part to the fact that antisemitism has been on the rise. I am beginning to see pejorative comments online about my being a “Jew.” On a societal level, this is certainly a worrisome trend, but on a personal level, it means absolutely nothing to me. My reaction is to immediately discount the rest of what the speaker has to say, while at the same time feeling a bit sorry for their stupidity and ignorance.

This response is probably cultural. While I was young, whenever I saw signs of antisemitic exclusion, like some club not accepting Jews, it seemed that Jews had banded together to build a nicer club down the road. The response to antisemitism was not a sense of victimization, but rather an incentive to be better and do better. Such a material response may be a luxury of circumstances that is not available to all, but the psychic response is always available. Die Gedanken Sind Frie (“Thoughts are free”), after all.

It is also important to note that words are not static. Their meanings evolve over time as language and culture evolve. Rewriting the words of speakers or writers of the 17th century, or the 1950s, so that they adhere to the cultural sensitivities of the present time robs us not only of great literature but also of historical perspective. Repeating the mantra “Words Matter” as a rationale for censoring words or silencing others, is often simply code for “Coddle Me.” To edit Roald Dahl or Ian Fleming, so that young adults are never exposed to words or situations that might not be considered appropriate for popular discourse today is to stunt their intellectual and emotional growth.

Censoring and other strictures on language are not the solutions. Rational discussion and even ridicule are. Words themselves can be the greatest tools to alter the impacts of other words. After all, words aren’t, or shouldn’t be, treated as if they are sacred. Allowing them to be said out loud often robs them of their power. In 1972, the comedian George Carlin was arrested for disturbing the peace for performing a routine in which he described the “Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television”:  “shit,” “piss,” “fuck,” “cunt,” “cocksucker,” “motherfucker,” and “tits,” expressing amazement that they could not be used regardless of context. He later said:

I don’t know that there was a “Eureka!” moment or anything like that … It’s just impossible to say “this is a blanket rule.” You’ll see some newspapers print “f blank blank k.” Some print “f asterisk asterisk k.” Some put “f blank blank blank.” Some put the word “bleep.” Some put “expletive deleted.” So there’s no real consistent standard. It’s not a science. It’s a notion that they have and it’s superstitious. These words have no power. We give them this power by refusing to be free and easy with them. We give them great power over us. They really, in themselves, have no power. It’s the thrust of the sentence that makes them either good or bad.

The next time someone says “words matter,” ask them why. If they say it is because words can cause them harm or offense, suggest they consider growing up. That, too, may offend, but maybe those words, and a subsequent discussion, can also do some good.

Director Terry Gilliam, of Monty Python fame, described the purpose of many of their skits:

Use your brain, use these things. That was essential to Python, as far as I was concerned. And causing offense was a part of that. It’s to shock people. To shock them out of their complacency, their timidity, their caution in life. Be bold, fall on your face a couple of times. It doesn’t hurt that badly. You bounce back up. It’s okay.

A recent gripping Quillette piece extolled the courageous writing career of Salman Rushdie and discussed his newest book, Victory City, published six months after he was stabbed on stage in August 2022. The title of the Quillettearticle, “Words Are the Only Victors,” refers in part to the final words of his heroine as she buries her record of her city’s final moments of destruction in a clay pot beneath the earth.

In a world governed by hate and irrationality, it may be true that in the aftermath of violence, words may be the only victors. But in a world where words are treated as if they are both weapons and attackers, and where we shield ourselves from them for fear that they might induce feelings in us that we don’t like, we don’t become the victors—we only further victimize ourselves.

Source: Words Don’t Matter

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Marcoux, Corbeil et Piché: Le plurilinguisme des immigrants francophones que l’on ignore

2023/03/04 Leave a comment

Good discussion of the language realities on Quebec immigrants in contrast to the more simplistic analyses of some:

Favoriser l’immigration francophone semble actuellement faire consensus au Québec comme mesure pour favoriser le maintien du français. Le profil des immigrants que le Québec souhaite ainsi accueillir est et sera largement lié à l’espace international où l’on compte déjà plus de 325 millions de francophones.

On peut par ailleurs se réjouir que la « Loi sur la langue officielle et commune du Québec, le français » attribue à l’Institut de la statistique du Québec (ISQ) un rôle central. L’ISQ dispose en effet d’une expertise importante dans le domaine de la production d’informations statistiques et les problématiques liées à la langue française au Québec nécessiteront des efforts considérables en matière de suivi, de recherche d’informations de qualité et d’élaboration d’indicateurs au cours des années à venir. Relevant ce nouveau mandat, l’ISQ a récemment publié sur son site Web des tableaux détaillés sur les langues au Québec. Le fait que l’on tienne compte parfois des réalités du plurilinguisme des francophones et parfois non nous apparaît toutefois pour le moins étonnant.

Examinons les données présentées pour l’île de Montréal puisque c’est dans cette région que se concentrent les immigrants. C’est à partir des résultats de ces tableaux que plusieurs observateurs ont diffusé l’information selon laquelle moins de 50 % des Montréalais parlaient le français à la maison. Il est vrai que ce seuil de 50 % marque les imaginaires. Mais qu’en est-il exactement ?

On apprend qu’un peu plus de 955 000 personnes déclarent le français comme langue unique parlée le plus souvent à la maison sur l’île de Montréal en 2021. Toutefois, près de 175 000 personnes déclarent parler le plus souvent plus d’une seule langue à la maison, dont 132 000 qui y citent le français. Il serait à notre avis peu approprié de les exclure de la population parlant le français sur l’île de Montréal. Or, la proportion de la population sur ce territoire déclarant le français comme langue le plus souvent parlée à la maison (langue unique ou à égalité avec d’autres) est de 55 % et non de 48 %.

Mais allons encore plus loin. Il faut savoir que le questionnaire du recensement a connu quelques modifications au fil du temps et qu’il permet aussi de saisir toutes les langues parlées régulièrement à la maison. Le problème est que les tableaux rendus disponibles actuellement par l’ISQ ne le permettent pas. En effet, le seul tableau s’intéressant aux « langues parlées régulièrement à la maison » regroupe l’ensemble des personnes qui déclarent parler le plus souvent plus d’une langue, et ce, sans préciser combien parmi celles-ci déclarent le français. Comme il nous l’est d’ailleurs suggéré sur le site de l’ISQ, nous avons exploité les données issues du site Web de Statistique Canada. Résultat : sur l’île de Montréal, on se retrouve non plus avec moins de la moitié des personnes qui parlent le français à la maison, comme il a été rapporté dans les médias, mais plutôt 65 %, soit presque deux personnes sur trois.

Mieux comprendre les réalités des migrants francophones

Nous avons plus d’une fois relevé que « les plaques tectoniques de la Francophonie se déplacent du nord vers le sud avec l’Afrique qui devient le continent-pôle ». Ce continent regroupe en 2022, selon l’ISQ, six des principaux pays de naissance des immigrants récents au Québec, dont l’Algérie, le Maroc et la Tunisie, mais également le Cameroun, la Côte d’Ivoire et le Congo-Kinshasa. Or, la réalité de cette immigration d’Afrique francophone est qu’elle est déjà à l’origine inscrite dans des pratiques plurilingues. Par exemple, à Abidjan, qui compte actuellement plus de 5,6 millions de citadins, le français est utilisé comme unique langue parlée à la maison par 20 % des habitants alors que 70 % déclarent utiliser le français et une langue ivoirienne en famille. Au travail, plus de 90 % des Abidjanais et Abidjanaises déclarent parler le français.

Ce schéma francophone plurilingue, à la maison et au travail, caractérise aussi, avec quelques variantes, les grandes métropoles d’autres pays d’Afrique : Bénin, Burkina Faso, Cameroun, Congo, Gabon, etc. Ailleurs, le français est moins présent, mais fait figure de langue partenaire, par exemple avec le wolof à Dakar au Sénégal, l’arabe et le tamazight au Maghreb.

En ignorant le plurilinguisme des immigrants francophones, on maintient dans l’angle mort le fait que ces dynamiques linguistiques sont complexes et évoluent lentement et de façon variable. En d’autres termes, pour ces nouveaux arrivants, le français risque fort d’être beaucoup plus utilisé dans l’espace public qu’à la maison. Il pénètre progressivement la sphère privée précisément parce qu’il est utilisé hors de la sphère familiale.

Si on souhaite favoriser l’immigration francophone au Québec, il importe de reconnaître le caractère plurilingue de ces nouveaux arrivants. Il importe surtout et bien évidemment de le reconnaître dans les statistiques produites et dans les indicateurs que l’on nous propose.

Source: Le plurilinguisme des immigrants francophones que l’on ignore

Filed under Interculturalisme, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

StatsCan: Official language proficiency and immigrant labour market outcomes: Evidence from test-based multidimensional measures of language skills 

2023/01/28 Leave a comment

Of interest. Significant difference:

Numerous studies have demonstrated that higher proficiency in the language spoken in the destination country improves immigrant labour market outcomes. However, because of a lack of objective measures of language skills, previous studies have mainly drawn on subjective measures of language proficiency and were confined to the effect of only one dimension or general language skills. This study examines the effects of test-based measures of official language proficiency in four dimensions—listening, speaking, reading and writing—on immigrant employment and earnings. The analysis focuses on economic principal applicants admitted through the Express Entry (EE) system who immigrated to Canada from 2015 to 2018. A self-reported language measure based on self-reported knowledge of official languages at immigration and mother tongue is also examined for comparison. 

The analysis of employment outcomes shows that in the initial years after immigration, test-based language measures in all four dimensions, as well as the self-reported language measure, had little effect on the incidence of employment. The analysis of earnings, however, shows that the predictive power and the marginal effect of each of the four dimensions of test-based language measures were much stronger than those of the self-reported measure, indicating that using the latter can considerably underestimate the effect of language skills on earnings. The four test-based measures of official language skills all had independent positive effects on earnings. Reading tended to have a stronger predictive power and a larger marginal effect than the other three dimensions, but the differences across the four dimensions were generally small. The tested official language skills were as important as pre-immigration Canadian work experience and more important than the educational level and age at immigration in predicting initial earnings of principal applicants admitted under the EE system.

Source: Official language proficiency and immigrant labour market outcomes: Evidence from test-based multidimensional measures of language skills

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , ,

Lisée: Quebec’s plan to eradicate English

2023/01/10 Leave a comment

Clever piece but unlikely to convince many:

It’s much worse than everything you’ve heard. The assault on the Anglo minority in Quebec has been best summed-up by Marlene Jennings: it is, she said, a “perfect formula” for “eradication.” She should know. The former Liberal MP headed until recently the Quebec Community Groups Network, spearheading the fight against François Legault’s many-pronged and still evolving eradication plan.

The numbers don’t lie. Quebecers who have English as a mother tongue account for 8 per cent of the population. But what of the ability to attract newcomers into the Anglo fold, given the enormous power of attraction of French on the continent? The proportion of Quebecers that uses English more than French in their daily lives is only 14 per cent. That doesn’t even double the count. Granted, 44 per cent of all Quebecers do speak English as do close to 80 per cent of young francophone Montrealers, but that is poor consolation.

Case in point: Quebec’s intolerant immigration policies has only let into the Montreal area about 90,000 unilingual English-speaking newcomers in the last three years — since the election of the governing CAQ — which barely adds 14 per cent to the Anglo population, so you can see where this is headed.

Everybody knows that the CAQ language bill, now in effect, will crack down on any doctor or nurse who would dare speak English to anyone not member of the “historic Anglo community,” meaning those who attended school in English. The actual text of the law tries to hide this fact by stating that French is required “except in health,” and then a specific section gaslights jurists by saying it specifically does not apply to the general statute on health and social services. 

Don’t be fooled by the fact that other law compels hospitals in all regions to set up English speaking access plans and to render services in English for anyone who asks for them. In reality, Anglo Quebecers have little other resource than to rely on the 37 institutions of the English public health network, which barely employs 45 per cent of the Island of Montreal’s health workers. 

Outside that small cocoon, English speakers needing medical care will be lucky if they fall in the hands of the puny proportion of French doctors that actually speak their language: 88 per cent. It is clear to anyone who follows these issues that French Canadians outside Quebec would revolt if their access to health in their language was that dire.

It’s even shoddier, of course, in the labour market. Toronto readers know, thanks to Globe and Mail columnist Andrew Coyne, that “the law prohibits the use of any language but French in the province’s workplaces, large or small, public or private.” Specifically, the new law extends to mid-sized shops, the regulation having existed for 35 years in larger ones. 

The damage is already done: in the last census, the proportion of workers in the Montreal area who used mostly English at work was down to 20 per cent, those who use it regularly down to 49 per cent. Why aren’t all these people fined by the language police? 

Corruption, laziness and incompetence, endemic in Quebec as famously reported in Maclean’s magazine, are surely the only explanation for this lack of enforcement, hidden perhaps behind a slew of exceptions enabling anyone to speak any language to clients, suppliers, the head office, or colleagues, provided French is the “usual and habitual language of work.” Usual and habitual, which are, of course, code words for intransigence. Now if someone would be foolish enough to impose, say, English as the “usual and habitual language of work” in Toronto or Mississauga, all hell would break loose.

In Quebec, only 14 per cent of management positions are held by the 8 per cent of Anglos, which gives them a ridiculously small systemic advantage. Thank God for the rebel CEOs of Air Canada, SNC-Lavalin, the Laurentian Bank, the Canadian National and Couche Tard, proud unilingual Anglos, who enable all their senior staff and secretaries to revel in English, whatever their linguistic background. That’s inclusion.

Language oppression is Quebec is particularly offensive in education. René Lévesque’s Bill 101 famously took away the linguistic choice for K-12 to all, except Anglos and immigrants going to English schools prior to 1977, who retain the right to choose and pass it to their descendants for all eternity, and any English-Canadian of any background schooled in English moving to Quebec anytime and their descendants, for all eternity. Appalling.

Granted, the 8 per cent of Anglos have access to 17 per cent of spots in colleges and 25 per cent of universities, with 30 per cent of research grants. The new law would actually cap the Anglo Cegeps at merely double the presence of Anglos in the population. Not only that. These institutions of higher learning used to properly shun Anglo high schoolers that had lesser grades and give their spots to French students bright enough and bilingual enough to enrol there. The anti-Anglo nationalist government now forces these colleges to give precedence to Anglo students in enrolment, thus forcing Anglo institutions into debasing themselves by catering to lesser Anglos. Shameful, really.

Now for the coup de grâce. The inward-looking Quebec government seems to have it in it’s head that Anglo kids should be proficient enough in French to succeed in a work environment where French is still, alas, unavoidable. By law, all Anglo high schoolers with diplomas in hand are deemed bilingual. So why bother asking them, in college, to hone this skill? This idea is so bonkers that when the Quebec Liberal party proposed that Anglo students attend three classes IN French, (alongside their French colleagues who follow ALL classes in English), the scandal was enormous. 

The federation of colleges announced that a full third of Anglo students would fail. Not fare badly, but fail. Pretending that a bilingual person could actually read texts, attend lectures and render a paper in another language is of course nonsensical. One Anglo CEGEP director, Christian Corno, hit it on the nail by writing, in French, that this abomination was motivated by a willingness “to make Anglo students atone for the sins of their ancestors” (who may or may not have oppressed the French in the past, a debatable assertion). 

The fallback position has been to increase the number of French classes that these poor students should take, from two to five. This, also, puts their grades in jeopardy. Forcing students to learn the language of the majority of the population where they live and will work is an unacceptable imposition, surely unheard of anywhere else in the world.

The relentlessness of Quebec’s assaults on minority and religious rights extracts a heavy toll on its international reputation and attractiveness. Last year, only 177,000 foreign temporary workers and students were in the province. Yes, it is triple the usual amount and an all-time high. But just think of those who didn’t come. 

Foreign investment is repelled by the current intolerant climate. FDI in the Montreal area only jumped 69 per cent to a record high of $3.7 billionlast year but this is only attributable to Quebec boasting a recent growth rate greater than that of any G7 countries, Canada included. The fact that these newcomers and investors came to Quebec after the controversy and adoption of the secularism bill and during the language bill controversy simply points to the paucity of information available to them.

Thankfully, for the first time in history, the number of Ontarians moving to Quebec outpaced the number or Quebecers moving to Ontario. It used to be that, each year, 3,000 to 9,000 more Quebecers would leave for Ontario than the other way around. But given the new toxic environment, the flow has flipped and, last year, almost a net 800 brave Ontarianscrossed the Ottawa River to settle in Quebec. (In total, an astonishing 29,000 citizens moved from the Rest of Canada to Quebec in 2021.) Not for lower housing prices or better services or job outlook, but simply, surely, to contribute in defeating the eradication plan afoot. More will be needed. 

Please, come in droves! Hurry, before the last English word is ever spoken in Quebec.

Jean-François Lisée is an author, a columnist for Le Devoir and a former head of the Parti Québécois. This text may contain traces of irony. One may find his rants at jflisee.org

Source: Quebec’s plan to eradicate English

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Balan and Packer: Supporting minority languages requires more than token gestures

2023/01/10 Leave a comment

Like so many advocates and academics, the authors speak more in generalities and principles rather than specifics.

While the situation of Indigenous languages is different, for immigrants and their descendants the working assumption of integrating into an English or French speaking environment remains relevant, with government information generally available in other languages with some translation or interpretation where needed in healthcare.

Having a common language, while allowing for and accommodating other languages, is important not only for overall social cohesion and inclusion but also to improve opportunities for minority groups:

In August 2022, Statistics Canada released the latest census data on languages in Canada. According to the data, over nine million people — or one in four Canadians — has a mother tongue other than English or French (a record high since the 1901 census). 

Twelve per cent of Canadians speak a language other than English or French at home. Statistics Canada observes that the country’s linguistic diversity will likely continue to grow into the future.

Yet, recent developments in language policy and practices in Canada reveal that there is confusion and misunderstanding among government officials and the general public about language use, international language rights and their implications.

In Canada, there must be greater understanding of the cultural and linguistic rights of minorities. According to universally accepted human rights, persons belonging to majorities and minorities should have equal rights. Minorities are entitled to equal conditions and services to enable them to maintain their identity, culture and language.

The 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a human rights treaty to which Canada is a party, provides that “In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, or to use their own language.”

The 1992 UN Declaration on Minorities clarifies and expands on this treaty provision. It stipulates that UN member states should enact legislative and other measures to protect minority identities.

Confusing words

Two words are often confused in Canada: integration and assimilation. When speaking about immigrants and refugees, Canadian law’s stated objective is integration. And the default framework for integration is the majority culture and language. 

Non-anglophone and non-francophone immigrants are expected to adapt and conform to the Canadian way of doing things, learn Canadian history, celebrate Canadian holidays and speak in one or both of Canada’s official languages.

But these languages reflect the cultures of Canada’s two historically dominant groups. For many Indigenous people and immigrants, histories, holidays and languages differ from the majority of Canadians.

Involuntary assimilation is prohibited under international law. This is a colonialist and imperialist practice which ultimately forces people to alter or surrender their identity, culture and dissolve into the majority. 

Canada’s notorious residential schools were one of the harshest examples of such assimilationist policies. Other essentially assimilationist practices continue to this day. For example, the law states that provinces must provide education to English or French-speaking minorities in their own language. But there is no similar legislation for Indigenous languages, nor for those spoken by people who immigrate from all around the world. These policies will increasingly conflict with growing diversity as Canada seeks to welcome 1.5 million immigrants over the next three years.

In contrast, integration is based on recognition of diversity. Integration is a two-way process through which minorities and majorities learn about and engage with each other’s cultures and languages. 

While maintaining their own distinctiveness, majority and minority groups contribute to shared foundations and institutions of the society out of common interest and for mutual benefit. This is important for the many individuals who possess multiple or overlapping identities.

In 2012, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, of which Canada is a participating state, released Guidelines on Integration of Diverse Societies, in which it explained:

“Integration is a process that requires that all members of a given society accept common public institutions and have a shared sense of belonging to a common State and an inclusive society. This does not exclude the possibility of distinct identities, which are constantly evolving, multiple and contextual. Mechanisms aiming at mutual accommodation are essential to negotiate the legitimate claims put forward by different groups or communities.”

Integration requires accommodation of diversity. It also means that governments should invest proportionally in the promotion of majority and minority cultures and languages with a view to facilitating full lives in dignity and equal rights for everyone. This requires more than token support for cultural activities such as traditional food and dance.

There is also confusion around the issue of minority language status. In Canada there is a common belief that the only minority language(s) entitled to protection are the ones with official or other recognized status. But according to international human rights principles, all minority cultures and languages should be protected regardless of whether they hold “official” status. 

This means that the languages of Indigenous Peoples as well as of other people living in Canada should be acknowledged and facilitated. This is essential for their well-being and for genuine equality in rights.

Not a zero-sum game

Genuine integration should respect and promote diversity in the languages used in various contexts of public life. This does not necessarily require changing the number and status of official languages; it’s not a zero-sum game. But it does require adjusting language policies to reconcile with existing realities in reasonable and meaningful ways. The aim is real and effective equality. 

Technological innovations (such as easily accessible real-time translation) make this more possible and cost-effective than ever.

In order to live together peacefully and embrace diversity, Canadians need to understand that languages are not just a means of technical communication, but are often at the core of people’s identity and culture. Taking away a person’s languageoften amounts to taking away their sense of self, dignity and community belonging. It also suppresses the remarkable linguistic assets that Canada possesses.

Building a Canadian nation through assimilation of minorities in the face of increasing diversity only generates social tensions and conflicts. It is not democracy, it is majoritarianism. It is contrary to fundamental human rights and signals social regression rather than progress. 

Instead, Canada should foster a forward-looking, human-centred and dynamic society that embraces diversity, multiculturalism and multilingualism. This is to our advantage. Canada’s rich linguistic diversity is an asset that should be valued. We must cast off the old colonialist thinking and seize the rich possibilities that are at hand.

Source: Supporting minority languages requires more than token gestures

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

David: Au-delà du discours

2022/12/02 Leave a comment

Quebec commentary on PM Legault’s inaugural speech and focus on language and immigration (language worries based on mother tongue rather than more important language of work). And the realists in cabinet recognize that 100 percent francophone immigration will exclude some needed expertise and talent;

En 2018, le succès de Québec solidaire durant la campagne électorale avait fait soudainement découvrir à François Legault l’urgence de s’attaquer aux changements climatiques. Cette fois-ci, on a l’impression que le discours du Parti québécois sur le recul du français a provoqué le même genre d’illumination.

Le discours inaugural est rarement très excitant, à plus forte raison quand un gouvernement est reconduit dans ses fonctions après avoir fait campagne sur la continuité. Et à force de multiplier les priorités, on finit par donner l’impression de ne pas en avoir.

Le premier ministre a néanmoins senti la nécessité d’un rattrapage sur la question linguistique. D’entrée de jeu, il a évoqué le « destin improbable » des compagnons de Champlain, débarqués en terre d’Amérique il y a plus de quatre siècles, qui avaient « réussi à tenir », ce qui a imposé à leurs descendants l’obligation de continuer.

Son « premier devoir », a-t-il dit, est d’enrayer le déclin du français et même d’inverser la tendance. Il a reconnu du même coup que ce qui a été fait durant son premier mandat demeurait insuffisant, même s’il faut du temps avant que la loi 96 produise son plein effet.

Le ministre de la Langue française, Jean-François Roberge, avait mis la table 24 heures plus tôt. « Il va vraiment falloir que les Québécois comprennent qu’en ce moment, on ne marche pas, on court vers le mur ! On a un vrai problème. Le recul du français est plus important dans les 20 dernières années que dans le siècle précédent », avait-il déclaré.

Il n’y aura cependant pas de « réveil national », à moins que le gouvernement ne donne lui-même l’exemple. Certes, chacun doit agir, que ce soit dans le choix des produits culturels qu’il consomme ou encore en exigeant d’être servi en français, mais il revient aux élus de définir le cadre légal à l’intérieur duquel le combat pour la survie du seul état à majorité francophone en Amérique du Nord pourrait peut-être être encore gagné.

Si le français ne cesse de reculer comme langue de travail, le ministre peut-il sérieusement penser que la responsabilité revient aux francophones, qui ne sont pas suffisamment exigeants envers leurs employeurs ? Quand ils se présentent dans un hôpital de la région de Montréal où ils sont incapables d’être soignés en français, devraient-ils claquer la porte et aller ailleurs ?

S’il est possible d’exploiter un commerce ou de travailler dans un service public sans être en mesure de parler la langue de la majorité, ou même en refusant de le faire, c’est manifestement que rien ne l’empêche.

M. Legault exclut toujours d’étendre les dispositions de la loi 101 au niveau collégial, estimant que cela n’aurait pas d’effet majeur sur la francisation des immigrants. Il n’a jamais semblé comprendre qu’une politique linguistique est un tout dont chacun des éléments n’est pas nécessairement déterminant, mais dont la conjugaison permet d’arriver au résultat souhaité.

Le premier ministre dit maintenant miser sur une immigration à 100 % francophone ou presque, et il découvre maintenant que beaucoup pourraient être faits sans les nouveaux pouvoirs qu’il réclame au gouvernement fédéral depuis des années.

La nouvelle ministre de l’Immigration, Christine Fréchette, a voulu calmer quelque peu l’emballement de son patron, qui a toujours eu du mal à maîtriser ce dossier, en disant qu’il fallait plutôt « tendre vers » cet objectif et que des immigrants simplement « francotropes », qu’ils aient pour langue maternelle l’arabe, le créole ou le swahili, pourraient faire l’affaire.

Le superministre de l’Économie, Pierre Fitzgibbon, s’est également empressé de mettre des bémols et réclame déjà des exceptions, notamment pour le développement de la filière des batteries, en attendant les autres projets qui ne manqueront pas de lui venir à l’esprit. « Ce serait l’fun d’avoir 100 %, mais il faut être réaliste et balancer ça avec les besoins », a-t-il expliqué.

M. Fitzgibbon pourra toujours rappeler au premier ministre que c’est exactement ce qu’il disait lui-même il n’y a pas si longtemps. En février 2019, M. Legault avait exprimé clairement sa vision des choses lors de la présentation du projet de loi 9 sur l’immigration. « Le PQ préfère dire : on va exiger le français avant l’arrivée. Moi, je pense que ça n’aiderait pas à bien répondre aux besoins du marché du travail », avait-il déclaré.

Il ne fait aucun doute que M. Legault aimerait que le Québec soit le plus français possible, mais sa priorité, pour ne pas dire son obsession, a toujours été d’abord de l’enrichir et de rattraper son retard par rapport à l’Ontario, thème sur lequel il est revenu à plus d’une reprise dans le discours inaugural. M. Fitzgibbon lui fera sans doute valoir qu’il est toujours hasardeux de courir deux lièvres à la fois.

Source: Au-delà du discours

Filed under Immigration Tagged with ,

Du «racisme» linguistique

2022/11/25 Leave a comment

Of note. Good réplique to some of the Quebec debate on language and immigrants:

S’il est légitime d’exiger du gouvernement fédéral de tenir compte des demandes du Québec en matière de langue, il n’y a par contre aucune légitimité à restreindre, comme le fait Mario Beaulieu dans un texte récemment paru en ces pages (cosigné par onze personnes), la qualité de francophone aux seuls locuteurs de français langue maternelle. Selon lui, il faudra s’attendre à un « effondrement du poids des francophones au Québec, de 81,6 % en 2011 à 73,6 % en 2036 ». Il faut en finir une fois pour toutes avec ce « racisme » linguistique. (Le mot « racisme » est ici entre guillemets pour n’en retenir que la notion de hiérarchie.)

Il est complètement ridicule de croire qu’un francophone est une personne qui a dit « môman » avant l’âge de deux ans. Un francophone, c’est aussi un plurilingue dont le français n’est pas la langue maternelle. On ne naît pas francophone, on le devient.

Au Québec, 85 % de l’augmentation de la population provient de l’immigration. Nul besoin d’être lauréat de la médaille Fields pour comprendre que la proportion du groupe non immigrant (et d’origine non immigrante) va décroître avec le temps. Ce qui n’est pas le cas des francophones, si par francophone on entend toute personne qui a appris le français à la maison, sur les bancs d’école ou sur les lieux de travail (ici ou ailleurs). L’objectif de la loi 101 était de faire du français langue maternelle une langue fraternelle, pour qu’on puisse mettre en commun nos mémoires plurielles, nos parcours et nos rêves afin d’y puiser les ressources et l’audace pour faire du Québec une société prospère, pluraliste et égalitaire, et non pas une société où il y aurait deux classes de citoyens.

Le Québec accueille des immigrants depuis des générations. Beaucoup d’entre eux ont appris le français avant la loi 101. Depuis 1977, cette loi a obligé des dizaines de milliers de jeunes immigrants à fréquenter les écoles françaises pendant onze ans. En outre, bon nombre de nos immigrants sont originaires d’anciennes colonies françaises. Ils se chiffrent eux aussi par dizaines de milliers. Comme très peu d’entre eux déclarent le français comme langue maternelle, ils sont pour la plupart disqualifiés comme francophones, même si parmi eux on compte des professeurs de français, des professionnels qui travaillent en français, des écrivains et tant d’autres citoyens venus d’ailleurs, profondément attachés au Québec, pour qui le terme « Québec français » est un pléonasme.

La hiérarchie ainsi créée, entre le français de langue maternelle et le français de langue seconde, ne doit pas être prise à la légère. Elle crée des catégories de citoyens n’ayant pas la même valeur dans la société, situation propice au racisme. Nous savons comment, dans d’autres lieux, mais encore aujourd’hui, la hiérarchisation des cultures s’est substituée à celle fondée sur la race — lorsque celle-ci est devenue une hérésie scientifique —, avec des conséquences néfastes sur les plans politique et social. Au Québec, où langue et culture sont souvent interchangeables, il est temps de remiser cette aberration avant que des esprits moins inoffensifs que des déclinistes et des comptables ne s’en emparent.

L’État québécois est doté de suffisamment de pouvoirs et de ressources pour assurer la pérennité et l’essor de la culture et de la langue françaises. Qu’il les utilise efficacement et judicieusement sans blâmer ni pénaliser les immigrants. Entre 1971 et 2016, l’utilisation du français dans les écoles (maternelles, primaires et secondaires) est passée de 64 % à 90 %, tandis que la proportion d’immigrants francophones dépasse les 60 %, et pourra facilement augmenter si, comme l’indique le démographe Richard Marcoux, on va puiser dans l’énorme bassin francophone africain.

Le français n’est pas près de disparaître. Au Québec, il n’y a que 6 % de la population qui n’a aucune connaissance du français. La complexité de la situation linguistique exige de ceux qui l’analysent qu’on tienne compte de multiples critères et, surtout, qu’on désethnicise enfin la notion de francophone. Il serait honteux que les « voleurs de jobs » de l’après-guerre deviennent maintenant des « voleurs de langue ».

Selon Machiavel, « celui qui contrôle la peur des gens devient le maître de leurs âmes ». Partout en Occident, populistes et démagogues ont réussi à faire croire que les minorités immigrantes représentent une menace pour les modes de vie et l’identité de la majorité afin de s’emparer du pouvoir. Le Québec ne fait malheureusement pas exception.

Source: Du «racisme» linguistique

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

Quebec tells federally regulated firms to guarantee use of French among employees

2022/07/14 Leave a comment

Federal response has been weak to date. Will be interesting to see the results of expected court cases:

The Quebec government is giving companies in federally regulated sectors one month to begin complying with new requirements to guarantee the use of French in their workplaces.

The move comes as Ottawa’s plans to modernize the country’s Official Languages Act, which will include new rules for federally regulated companies, are still being debated in Parliament.

Federally regulated sectors include banking, telecommunications and transportation, which were not under the legal purview of the Quebec government until the recent adoption of a new language law known as Bill 96.

Source: Quebec tells federally regulated firms to guarantee use of French among employees

Filed under Government Tagged with , , ,

Lost in translation: Patients more likely to die, have serious outcomes when their physicians don’t speak their preferred language

2022/07/12 Leave a comment

Serious study and implications. During my experience as a cancer patient, I often reflected on how hard it must be for patients with weaker language skills, education and income:

Patients treated by physicians who speak their own language are healthier and less likely to die while in hospital, according to a new study led by Ottawa researchers.

The study, published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, showed significant differences in outcomes among frail, older patients who were treated by a physician in their own language, compared to those who were not.

Francophones treated by a French-speaking physician had a 24 per cent lower chance of death than those who received care from a non-French-speaking doctor, according to the study. They also had shorter hospital stays and had a 36 per cent lower chance of adverse events, such as falls, while in hospital.

For patients whose first language was neither English nor French, known as allophones, the impact was stark. This group had a 54 per cent lower chance of death when treated by a physician in their own language and a 74 per cent lower chance of hospital-related harms, according to the research.

But fewer than two per cent of allophones and fewer than half of the Francophones in the study received physician care in their own language.

Co-author Dr. Peter Tanuseputro, a physician-scientist at The Ottawa Hospital, Institute du Savior Montfort, Bruyere Research Institute and The Ottawa Hospital, called the findings staggering.

“It’s clearly easier to convey important information about your health in your primary language. Regardless, the more than doubling in odds of serious harms, including death, for patients receiving care in a different language is eye-opening.”

Tanuseputro said the research underscores why it is important for hospitals to pay attention to the language patients speak as well as the languages physicians and other health workers speak.

The findings are likely to resonate in Ottawa and Eastern Ontario, where the Franco-Ontarian community rallied to save Montfort hospital after the Ontario government announced plans to close it in 1997. The battle, won after five years of political activism and legal fights, galvanized the community. Today, Montfort is a Francophone university health institution that provides care in both languages and has a research institute.

Still, Tanuseputro noted that the majority of Franco-Ontarians studied did not get health services in French.

The study’s lead author, Emily Seale, a medical student at the University of Ottawa and Institut du Savoir Montfort, said more must be done to make sure patients are heard and understood by referring them to physicians who speak the same language or by using interpreter services.

“This is not only good patient-centred care, but our research shows that there are grave health consequences when it doesn’t happen.”

Dr. Sharon Johnston, scientific director and associate VP research at the Institut du Savoir Montfort said the study is important because: “(it) helps us quantify the risk of greater harm faced by patients who cannot receive medical care in their preferred language. Understanding and addressing this issue, particularly for our francophone community in Eastern Ottawa and Ontario, is a key part of the mission of Hôpital Montfort and l’Institut du Savoir Montfort.”

The researchers relied partly on data from home care services, which keeps track of patients’ first languages.

They studied more than 189,000 adult home care recipients who had been admitted to hospital between April 2010 and March 2018. They compared patients who received care from a physician in their primary language and those who received care in a different language.

Most of the home care recipients in the study spoke English. Thirteen per cent spoke French and 2.7 per cent spoke another language.

Just over half of the physicians in the study spoke only English and the remainder were multilingual. While 44 per cent of Francophones received care primarily from French-speaking physicians, only 1.6 per cent of allophones received most of their care from physicians who spoke their primary language or one they could understand.

Tanuseputro said, in his own experience, making attempts to find a physician who can provide care in a patient’s language, or translation services, is not always a priority in a busy hospital.

“I am guilty of this too. What our study shows is that there are risks and consequences if you don’t do that.”

Among other suggestions, Tanuseputro said teams of physicians should consider a patient’s language and find someone better able to communicate with the patient. And translation services should be used, even if it takes time.

He also said hospitals should assess patients to understand how well they understand English. If they can’t, hospitals should have interpretive services or multi-lingual family available.

While the study looked at home care patients who were in hospital between 2010 and 2018, Tanuseputro said the situation may well have worsened during periods of the pandemic when family members were generally kept out of the hospital and unable to help interpret.

The study can be found at: https://www.cmaj.ca/lookup/doi/10.1503/cmaj.212155

Source: Lost in translation: Patients more likely to die, have serious outcomes when their physicians don’t speak their preferred language

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Lisée: Le louisianisateur

2022/06/08 Leave a comment

The vast majority of temporary residents in Quebec are international students, likely the majority in English language institutions. Some will move outside Quebec following completion of their degrees, particularly those who are unilingual and attend anglophone institutions. All have mobility rights across the country so the impact on Quebec demographics will likely be more limited than Lisée argues.

And of course, language spoken at home is the wrong measure given that immigrants and allophones largely speak their language of origin at home, and French in the public space:

L’heure est grave. François Legault pointe un doigt accusateur vers un gouvernement qui, par son insondable incurie, met en cause la « survie de la nation ».

Les chiffres sont incontestables. En trois ans, le coupable a déroulé le tapis rouge à 90 000 unilingues anglophones, massivement regroupés à Montréal, et à 30 000 autres qui ne connaissent rien à la langue de Vigneault. Il est grand temps de nommer le responsable : le gouvernement de François Legault.

On aura beau chercher dans les mandats de Philippe Couillard, Jean Charest, Robert Bourassa, on ne trouvera nulle part, avant la CAQ, un gouvernement qui en a fait autant, avec l’immigration, pour affaiblir le français et angliciser Montréal. S’il y a un louisianisateur au Québec, c’est François Legault. Et encore : on n’a pas encore les chiffres de 2022 et, sans la pandémie, c’eût été pire encore.

On pourrait parler de pompier pyromane si François Legault tentait aujourd’hui d’éteindre ce feu de forêt linguistique. Il n’en est rien. Alors que le sinistre, majeur, se trouve dans l’afflux d’immigrants temporaires dont la présence est constante et croissante, Legault n’agite son boyau que vers le petit feu de broussaille de la réunification familiale. Une fois soustraits les mineurs et les retraités, on ne trouve, là, que 3000 adultes non francophones par an.

La question de l’immigration est compliquée. L’indulgence doit-elle nous conduire à excuser l’incompétence du premier ministre en la matière ? Pendant la campagne de 2018, incapable de répondre à des questions simples au sujet de l’immigration dont il avait fait son thème phare, il admit ne pas être « un génie en herbe ». Il a eu quatre ans pour se mettre à niveau. Il ne l’a pas fait.

D’autant qu’avant ses déclarations de dimanche dernier, il avait à sa disposition les documents les plus à jour qu’on puisse espérer : les rapports que l’économiste Pierre Fortin et le démographe Marc Termote ont produits pour son gouvernement et qui braquent les projecteurs sur le dérapage linguistique opéré par l’afflux de temporaires non francophones.

Ils ne mâchent pas leurs mots. L’accélération fulgurante, voulue par Ottawa et permise par Québec, provoque chez nous « la perte de contrôle de sa politique d’immigration permanente », dit Fortin, et « le risque d’un recul important de la francisation de sa population immigrante ». Termote renchérit : « Pour que l’immigration temporaire ne contribue pas à fragiliser la présence du français, aussi bien dans l’espace public que dans l’espace privé, il faudrait que le pourcentage de francophones parmi ces immigrants soit au moins égal au pourcentage de francophones dans la population d’accueil ». Un tel constat, conclut-il, « devrait suffire à justifier une intervention croissante du Québec dans la gestion de cette immigration ».

Mais Fortin décrit un ministère de l’Immigration « submergé par un tsunami d’immigrants temporaires » — 177 000 l’an dernier — sur lesquels « le ministère n’exerce qu’un contrôle timide ». Comme Termote, il note que le gouvernement québécois détient, en ce moment, le pouvoir de limiter leur nombre ou d’exiger qu’ils aient une connaissance préalable du français. Un pouvoir qui existe dans l’entente Québec-Canada, confirment au Devoir le négociateur québécois de l’entente, Louis Bernard, et l’ex-responsable de la planification au ministère de l’Immigration, Anne Michèle Meggs.

Pourquoi ne le fait-il pas ? Fortin tente une explication : « Le gouvernement, écrit-il, craint sans doute les accusations d’irréalisme et de cruauté » de la part des cégeps et universités anglophones et des employeurs qui utilisent ces programmes comme des bars ouverts. Bizarre, car la mère patrie de l’anglophonie, le Royaume-Uni, n’hésite pas, elle, à exiger une connaissance préalable de l’anglais à ses futurs immigrants, y compris temporaires. Cruelle Albion !

Non seulement cette gestion a été inexistante depuis l’arrivée au pouvoir de la CAQ, mais son premier document de planification, de 2019, se donnait l’objectif d’augmenter de 15 % le nombre de ces temporaires. Ce qu’Ottawa a fait, et bien au-delà, avec plaisir.

Cette réalité, autrement plus grave que la question de la réunification familiale, nous oblige à poser une question grave. Si quelqu’un, au pouvoir, souhaitait que se poursuive sans interruption l’arrivée de tous ces temporaires qui anglicisent Montréal, que ferait-il ? D’abord, il gouvernerait pendant quatre ans sans jamais réguler ce flot. Ensuite, il ferait une fixation sur un objectif secondaire, sans grand impact — la réunification des familles — pour lequel il ne peut agir seul. Surtout, il ferait mine de ne rien pouvoir faire sans obtenir des pouvoirs que, c’est certain, il n’obtiendra jamais dans le cadre canadien. Tout cela en feignant d’être très préoccupé par la survie linguistique de son peuple.

Je suppose que si François Legault lit ces lignes, il s’indignera que je lui fasse un tel procès d’intention. C’est que la distance qui sépare ses discours de ses actions en immigration impose la plus grande sévérité, à l’heure où il demande aux Québécois un aller simple vers un cul-de-sac.

Sur le fond, où va-t-on ? « Dans la région de Montréal, on observe, et on continuera à observer un écartèlement croissant entre un français de moins en moins utilisé à la maison et le français resté plus ou moins majoritaire dans l’espace public, écrit Termote. Peut-on concevoir une société durablement soumise à un tel comportement quasi schizophrénique ? Comment réagiront les immigrants, et les anglophones, lorsqu’ils constateront que le français est minoritaire, ce qui est sur le point d’advenir sur l’île de Montréal et qui le sera dans une ou deux générations dans l’ensemble de la région métropolitaine ? »

Comment ils réagiront ? En faisant de l’anglais la langue commune, tout simplement. Et en remerciant celui qui a rendu la chose possible : François Legault.

Source:

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →