Au moment où j'écris ces lignes, je crois qu'il n'est plus nécessaire de faire la démonstration que la position de Jan Wong est non seulement farfelue mais également empreinte du racisme qu'elle veut dénoncer. J'aimerais toutefois noter au passage que l'article illustre une pensée dichotomique de la part de l'auteure qui ne fait qu'agrandir le fossé entre les communautés francophone et anglophone. Par exemple, la Gazette est pour elle "the city's only English-language daily" et Montréal, une ville qui a deux identités: "although Montreal is a big city, English-speaking Montreal is not." Elle réutilise les termes ethnophobes qu'elle répugne en indiquant que le tueur de Dawson, Marc Lépine ou Valery Fabrikant n'étaient pas des "pure laine" - alors qu'ils n'ont jamais revendiquer leurs actes en termes ethniques.
Comme le mentionne IP en réponse à mon court blog plus tôt cette semaine, la tragédie de Dawson est une chose, et la discrimination linguistique en est une autre. Quoique Wong mélange tout, on ne peut jeter du revers de la main l'idée qu'il y a discrimination linguistique au Québec. Certains évoqueront le passé douleureux teinté d'hégémonie anglophone dont les Québécois francophones ont été victimes jusque dans les années 60 pour justifier la situation favorable dont ils jouissent actuellement. Ce passé demandait une intervention étatique de façon à redonner "le Québec aux Québécois".
Mais qui sont ces Québécois? Là est la question... Nous nous rappelerons de la bavure de Parizeau qui attribua l'échec de 1995 sur la souveraineté au "vote ethnique" ainsi que ce qui se disait un peu partout en province sur la majorité de Québécois francophones qui avaient voté pour la souveraineté, insinuant au passage ce que Parizeau avait oser dire tout haut. Bien sûr, ce "purelainage" qui donnerait aux Québécois francophones dits de souche un statut de citoyen de première ligne est une idée répugnante (pour reprendre le terme de Wong). Toutefois, quand des arguments de discrimnation linguistique sortent de la bouche des Anglophones qui ne vivent même pas (ou plus) au Québec, leurs arguments manquent à mon avis de fondement. Les lois linguistiques du Québec protègent les deux peuples fondateurs (cette expression étant elle-même douteuse, étant donné la présence des peuples autochtones avant l'arrivée des Européens). Les anglophones de Montréal (puisque c'est surtout là qu'on les retrouve) ont leurs hôpitaux, leurs écoles, leurs cégeps, leurs universités en plus d'avoir maintes opportunités d'apprendre le français. Ainsi, quand on évoque les lois linguistiques comme preuve d'une exclusion, comme menace des droits de la minorité anglophone, souvent "on cherche à caricaturer la nation québécoise comme un regroupement ethnique pour invalider le nationalisme québécois et laisser entendre qu'il est fondé sur l'exclusion" (Michel Seymour, professeur de philosophie à l'Université de Montréal).
Cela dit, l'exclusion fait à mon sens partie du problème. Je crois que AP (que je remercie de prendre la défense du Québec) simplifie un peu le problème, qui est plus complexe que d'imputer le comportement des Québécois à la simple défense ou protection du français et non à une attaque envers les autres (notons les mots choisis ici, qui font souvent partie du discours nationaliste visant à victimiser les Québécois francophones pour les rendre sympathiques à la cause souverainiste). Je pense ici à l'exclusion des peuples autochtones, justement, mais aussi des nouveaux arrivants, allophones particulièrement. La loi 101 avait comme objectif d'orienter les choix linguistiques des allophones et à rétablir le statut du français dans la sphère publique, dans le monde scolaire et dans les domaines du travail et des affaires. Le français est alors devenu source de capital linguistique et économique, ce qui pouvait se justifier par la présence d'une majorité francophone vivant sur le territoire québécois. A mon sens, la discrimination linguistique se matérialise lorsque l'accès à ce capital linguistique est limité à un groupe d'individus au profit d'un autre et qui en retire des avantages symboliques (parler le français québécois comme un "pure laine", par exemple) ainsi qu'une mobilité économique plus aisée.
Peut-on concevoir que les personnes n'ayant pas accès à ce capital se sentent laisées? Certainement. Cela se produit-il au Québec? Oh que oui! Bien qu'ils crient haut et fort, je ne crois pas que ce soit les anglophones qui en soient victimes... ce sont plutôt les immigrants de première et de deuxième générations qui souffrent trop souvent en silence.
5 commentaires:
"[...] ce sont plutôt les immigrants de première et de deuxième générations qui souffrent trop souvent en silence."
Bahf. What the hell do you know about their suffering? ;)))
Hmm. I'm going to be thinking about this one for a while. It taxed the limits of my French, too (see how good you are for me?).
But let me see if I can give you a couple of things to think about as well. First, about immigrants.
One of the things you have to remember here is that I grew up American. And in the U.S., the people who tend to say that immigrants must be required to learn English tend to be right-wing and bigoted. Those who are more accepting of immigrants tend to say that it is up to them how much English they learn--if an old grandmother of, say, a shopkeeper in New York's Chinatown is most comfortable existing only within the few blocks of the Chinese-speaking area of the city for the rest of her short life, who are we to tell her that she can't stay in the country unless she takes some English classes (or worse, not let her in unless she's already bilingual)?
I understand that the situation in Quebec and especially Montreal is rather different--there's the language planning aspect to consider, the entirely reasonable effort to "rétablir le statut du français dans la sphère publique, dans le monde scolaire et dans les domaines du travail et des affaires." But when we're talking about Montreal's equivalent of that old Chinese grandmother, we're not talking about being concerned about the intrusion of English--we're talking about a woman who wants to live out the rest of her life in her language alongside the members of her French-Chinese bilingual family for whom it is more important to be a part of the wider society. In cases like those, does trying to "orienter les choix linguistiques des allophones" really serve the goal of the "loi 101," or is there something else going on?
Also, while I'm already on this tangent: I don't know if you'll even remember this, but when you came to Edmonton for your interview, I asked a couple of pointed questions about your work and got you to state outright what seems to have been an assumption that had informed your dissertation indirectly: that it is essential for Montreal's immigrants to learn French. You added immediately after stating that: "well, I think so, in my opinion." And that's exactly right--"Le français à TOUS les Québécois" is a political opinion. And while it may not be a particularly controversial political opinion in Quebec, its equivalent sure is in the U.S. (where there is a dominant language, but no official language at all, and therefore no language that one can require all immigrants to speak). As someone who grew up American, I can't help but hear echoes of the "english only" movement when I read things like "le français à TOUS les Québécois" in French. I'm sure you think I'm wrong about that, but I'd be curious what your arguments would be as to why.
And second, about Montreal anglophones. Now, I've never lived in Quebec, so I'm not going to claim to know anything at all first-hand about what it's like to be them. But I'd also argue that you know little about that yourself. And it's for that reason that I'm uncomfortable with you dismissing anglophones' attempts to describe their experiences with a "je ne crois pas que ce soit les anglophones qui en soient victimes."
Yes, 'victimes' (and for that matter, 'discrimination') is too strong a word for the sort of thing Vues d'ici discusses in her post, but she does describe a certain sort of social exclusion. And while I disagree with her that it's the language laws that are at fault--other cultures manage the same kind of social exclusion just fine without language laws, so I suspect it has more to do with being fallible human beings than with having a particular sort of language law--it seems disingenous for a francophone Quebecer to claim that the way she experiences things can't possibly be true.
IP:
Very, very good points!
In cases like the Chinese grandmother, I completely agree with you that French (or whatever dominant language is spoken in her immigrated land) might not be essential in her life, and that is fine. Obviously I would have an issue with anyone trying to argue that she is not entitled to stay in her adopted country.
Let’s take the case of say a young Pakistani father with an engineering degree but with little knowledge of French. Chances are he’ll run into many obstacles trying to find a job in his field and/or find something below his qualifications at a wage that is not quite comparable to what the locals make. For one, Québec government takes forever to recognize one’s education acquired abroad and may require more training. In the meantime, the Pakistani father needs a job, so he goes out and finds one. Employers tell him that they cannot hire him because he lacks professional experience in a North American context, not to mention his French is not good enough. He finds out that French courses are available – and free, even – but who can afford sitting in a classroom 25 hours a week when they have children to feed? Thus, he ends up working as a taxi driver, never really learns French, and is stuck in an economic trap. It is in that sense that I think Montreal’s immigrants should learn French, but I do feel that the burden is not so much on them as it is on Québec society…
I find that Québec tends to create too many obstacles that are contributing to reproducing discrimination based on so-called objective criteria (e.g. knowledge of French and the necessity of a North American experience). I am not advocating that our Pakistani father ought to know French for the better good of Québec society (well, maybe a little, secretly ;o). If he’s happy as a cab driver, he probably doesn’t need much French, and that is fine, but if he wants to find his former professional identity again, then I say that hegemonic practices are making it very difficult for him. Québec society controls how and where language courses are offered, what education is or isn’t good, what counts as “good enough French” while at the same time praising its language laws and claiming that immigrants should learn French to integrate. It pisses me off to hear that rhetoric when in fact very little is in place to help them acquire work-related linguistic competence. I would even argue that the obstacles mentioned above are unconsciously set up to maintain immigrants in a position of social and economic subordination that Québec society benefits from. In other words, claiming that French is essential in Québec is a way to maintain an underclass: too many mechanisms imposed on immigrants prevent them from integrating both linguistically and economically and so long as they don’t know French, they will remain the underclass.
Now, going back to my “secret” agenda (!): if an immigrant is going to converge to mainstream society by learning a mainstream language, and if this immigrant chooses Québec as her home, then I feel that this language should be French. Up until the 1970s, the default language was English. Now, thanks to bill 101, it’s French. In terms of societal goals, it makes more sense to me.
Now, the way I used “le français à TOUS les Québécois” doesn’t resonate with the English-only movement. Correct me if I’m wrong, but one of the original goals of this movement was to prohibit Hispanic workers (mostly) from speaking their native language at work. US courts have ruled against such prohibitions arguing the protection of basic human rights. Here, I am talking about something different. Expressions borrowed from the 1960s such as “le Québec aux Québécois” certainly had a sort of ethnic echo, something to the effect that Québécois were the pure-laine Francophones of French descents. In advocating “le français à TOUS les Québécois”, I am advocating an inclusive statement opposing the view that there are on the one hand real Québécois, and the “Others” on the other hand. The language should belong to all who want to use it as symbolic capital, not only to the ones that proclaim themselves pure-laine. Should all speak French? I still think that knowing the language will ease integration, access to good jobs and so on, but those who choose to be part of parallel linguistic and economic markets and who live well in their context are entitled to that choice. In other words, Québec, as a multicultural society, should provide access to linguistic resources to ALL since French language competence is linked to access to key sectors of the labour market.
As for my take on the social exclusion that Anglophone Montrealers are experiencing, you are right, IP. It is presumptuous on my part, having lived in Montreal for only about six months altogether AND as a Francophone, to dismiss their experience as untrue. The kinds of experiences discussed in Vues d’ici are certainly possible. As a group, however, I think Anglo-Québécois are well protected by the guarantees provided through linguistic legislation. I would argue that the exclusion narrated in Vues d’ici has little to do with aggressive language laws – as I just said Anglophones are protected by the same laws that protect Francophones although I will admit that the first legislative attempts in the 1970s were not all that inclusive. As you said, we are “fallible human beings” influenced by a heated socio-historical context as well as political (and journalistic) attempts to polarize opinions. So, we are back to Jan Wong!
Merci bien d'avoir mis toutes ces idées sur le net et de les avoir partagées avec nous! :-) Je suis un course en ce qui concerne le Québec et la language française au Canada et je trouve que ton blog m'intéresse beaucoup. Merci bien encore! :-)
Publier un commentaire