Slashdot Mirror
Quebec language Police Fine English-Only Site
Navarre writes: "The Quebec government continues to embarrass itself by missing the entire point of the internet. The language police are at it again, by fining an English-only website operating within the province. They didn't care that the owners of the site were selling to English-only customers outside of the province. If they would take their blinders off and join the 21st century, they would see that all they are doing is driving business out of Quebec by forcing these people to find their internet hosting elsewhere."
Perhaps this is a good time to mention to our worldwide neighbors that the Liberals and the Conservatives in Canada are political parties, and that "liberal" and "Liberal", and "conservative" and "Conservative" here can be entirely different things. The exact times that they are different things depends on who you talk to. :)
Uh-huh. And what if you can't speak french? Do non-French-speakers not have the right to make a living?
The U.S. would kill to keep english safe.
"Safe" in what way? While there are a few states where I've seen "official english" laws (those that specify that state business will be conducted in english -- primarily to try to avoid having to deal with employees who unilaterally decide to do all their work in another language or something), as far as I know none of them have been very succesfull, most of them as far as I know have never passed. And that is all on a state level, on a national level something like that would stand even less of a chance. As far as trying to 'keep english pure', there is no U.S. centric movement like that with any power. On the contrary, Americans delight in bastardizing the language by coining new terms at the drop of a hat, slang, subdialects (ebonics anyone?), large scale borrowing of terms from other languages... Spanish, French, Vietnamese, Russian, Japanese... All of them have been borrowed for words and phrases in common usage.
As for your suggestion of a spanish-only site... In certain parts of the U.S. there are tons of spanish speaking radio stations, a few spanish speaking television stations, and spanish newspapers. I don't hear much call for them to be shut down or fined. If you don't speak spanish you just turn the channel or read something else.
Nobody in the U.S. would think of imposing fines to keep spanish from coexisting with english, let alone 'kill to keep english safe'.
On the other hand, very few people in the U.S. are in favor of forcing multi-lingualism either... And frankly it wouldn't be fair, for example to require everything to be in both english and spanish, for example... What about the people who's native language is Korean, or Vietnamese or German or Norwegian? If you required multilingualism, there are places in the U.S. where in a certain area, people of those ethnic backgrounds are large minorities, if not occasionally the majority. There are just too many different languages spoken in the U.S. to choose some specific set.
U.S. English does indeed specify "color" rather than "colour", but no copy editor would let "nite" get printed in a respectable publication.
:-)
There really isn't a legal definition of what 'U.S. English' is, as far as I know. The generally agreed spelling is 'color', but there certainly is nothing legally stopping people from using 'colour' should they choose. Certainly a 'british english' publication or web site would be permitted in the U.S. without having to publish a 'U.S. english' edition/site. Similarly a french, german, chinese, japanese, korean, norwegian, spanish, etc. publication or web site would not be required to also have an english version.
Unfortunately businesspeople are known for taking normal words and bastardizing them, as in Kwik Kleen and the like.
Trademark laws actually tend to encourage that. You probably couldn't successfully trademark and defend "Quick Clean", but "Kwik Kleen" you probably could.
Anyway, I agree with your points, I just didn't want you to think that our USAian language skills had degenerated *that* far
Most of us U.S. citizens love to bastardize the language by borrowing words from other languages and haphazardly coining new words or changing the meaning of existing ones... One only has to think of the horrors of, for example, 'ebonics' to figure that one out. 'Wuz up wid dat?' Need I say more?
Congratulations! YOU...have mastered the art of the Straw Man!
What the poster said:
"...the people who care about preserving French in Canada aren't necessarily mistaken about coercion being the only way to do it."
What you say he said:
"COERCION GOOD! FORCE THEM TO SPEAK FRENCH! KILL ENGLISH-SPEAKERS AND EAT THEIR BABIES!"
Permit me to translate the poster's intent...Regardless of the utility of preserving French in Quebec, I believe that it won't happen voluntarily. People will not decide to speak primarily French unless they are forced to do so. Without the application of some external motivation, people will choose NOT to speak French.
Let's consider another example...gun control.
(ahem) The only way to achieve gun control in the U.S. is through coercion.
(You need only look at all the "from my cold, dead fingers" bumper stickers to see the truth in this.) Does the bolded statement up there affirm or oppose gun control? Neither; it merely states the opinion that it's not going to happen voluntarily.
We regret to inform you Mr. Rinker died of a heart attack while reading your post. His last words were reported to be "can't be...rational people...on slashdot..."
:)
I turned down an invitation to speak at a conference in Quebec. I don't speak French, and couldn't find anyone to translate the presentation materials.
Oh, well. Next year is Denver.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
I like this guy, he's funny. He's an advocate for freedom of speech - even if he can't spell it.
Like my Dad's army buddy, who said "Fuck the war in VietNam! Of course I hate the draft, but it's against the law not to register for the draft, man! Ya gotta register!"
Or my great-uncle, who said "Ah'm all fer civil rights, but don't they know it's agin' the law fer niggers t'drink from the whites-only fountain!"
And my great-great-grandpappy, who said "Hey, universal suffrage is a cool idea, but don't those silly dames realize it's against the law for women to vote?"
So I guess I'm all for freedom of speech... as long as the government hasn't outlawed it.
("So love me, love me, love me! I'm a liberal!")
Ah, I see, so if $COERCION is required to preserve $ETHNICITY in $GEOGRAPHICAL_REGION, that makes it OK?
I suppose you have no problem, then, with what happened in Bosnia... or Rwanda... or Cambodia... or, well, we won't mention that little country in Europe 60 years ago that decided it was OK to use a little bit of force to gain some "living space" for its ethnically-pure citizens.
Do a google search on "pur laine" (lit: "pure wool"). You'll see that there is a sizable segment of the Quebec population that thinks of itself as racially-pure.
Do some more searching, you'll find links between Quebec Nationalism and fascism. Sample source: 1996 article, "A Look At The Catholic Far Right In Quebec"
Better source: The story of Jean-louis Roux, Lieutenant Governor of Quebec, and his time as a Nazi sympathizer in the early 40s where he took part in Montreal's little mini-Kristallnacht: Source: 1996 B'Nai Brith article.
I'll leave off with an article from last year: Quebec Language Policy Isn't Funny.
Bottom line: There are some (to use the clinical diagnosis) seriously sick motherfuckers in Quebec. They have a hell of a lot of power, given how sick they are - they've kept a lot of secrets, and they've had a lot of cooperation in covering things up. Quebec language policies are just the tip of the iceberg - the underlying ethnic nationalism is a real problem, and a real threat, to fundamental freedoms in Canada.
I agree entirely with the poster that coercion may very well be the only way to preserve French in Canada.
When I read the post, however, it looked (to me) like the poster was presenting this thesis in a sympathetic context, implying that such coercion was justified.
Upon rereading the post (and parent post) in context, -the part of the article that says "I'm not sure how many Quebecois would choose to continue carrying the handicap of a language spoken by almost no one else in this hemisphere without these laws." and the part that says "I don't see [the loss of French in Michigan] as a loss", don't appear to advocate such coercion.
Good call. I didn't set up a straw man per se... but I sure misinterpreted the post to which I was replying ;)
1) I don't think Godwin's Law applies when you're actually talking about a political movement where many of its early leaders sympathized with the government of Germany during WW2.
History moment: There was an intense Anglo/Protestant vs. Francophone/Catholic ethnic mess going on in Quebec since the 1700s. Anti-Semitism was part of the baggage you happened to carry if you were a Quebec Catholic in the 1930s. Supporting the Germans in WW2 was natural for a Quebecois - because WW2 was portrayed to them as "just another silly British war like WW1" and they were still collectively bitter over that. Hence the Quebecois opposition to Conscription, which was the Canadian/British policy, and the resulting increase in sympathy with the you-know-whos in Germany. The fact that the German government shared the hardliners' hate-on for the Jews just made it easier for the meme to spread among the French population of Quebec.)
2) This isn't about requiring English documents to be translated into French. When laws call for fines (and if you don't pay the fine, presumably imprisonment) for putting up English signs and web sites, when laws call for unilingual French - outlawing English - at workplaces over 50 people, and so on, I don't see it as anything other than the start of a programme whose goals are indistinguishable from any other ethnic cleanser's. It's the thin edge of a sick wedge.
Perhaps a look at the demographics of Montreal during the period 1970 through 1990 would suffice?
ObGodwin: ("We don't persecute $ETHNICs, they just all seem to want to leave! We even help them pack!")
I'll grant you that ethnic cleansing is too strong a word for what the PQ is doing now. How 'bout "linguistic profiling"?
("You sir, you with the English on your website, gotta send the tonguetroopers over to your store to make sure you're not putting English signs up." seems pretty comparable to "You sir, you with the black/gold/green bumpersticker and the dreadlocks, pull over, you're doing 31 in a 30 zone, gotta check you out!")
I suppose you have no problem, then, with what happened in Bosnia... or Rwanda... or Cambodia... or, well, we won't mention that little country in Europe 60 years ago that decided it was OK to use a little bit of force to gain some "living space" for its ethnically-pure citizens.
It's reassuring to see that the internet is not such a lawless place. At least Godwin's law is respected.
While I admit Quebec language laws have gone somewhat ridiculous, I just can't equate "requiring any English contents to be translated in French" with "deporting and/or killing all English-speaking Canadians".
Maybe I'm just another fascist pig myself.
Thomas Miconi
Again, why should people be forced to speak a language? Obviously, if a business does not wish to cater to French speaking people, they should not be forced to do so. They obviously do not want the business of the French speakers, or may not need it. So what would forcing French into their business do, besides prove that French needs legislation to keep it alive?
If a language, culture or affluence is losing because another language, culture or affluence is greater in acceptance, then it's either time to let go, or setup a historical district (like Colonial Williamsburgh or Amish Country here), in which people can still learn about these with unfettered access, without laws.
But pushing people to always be a certain way through laws, for culture or language, is Fascist, not protecting a culture or language. The language and culture should change and modify itself for how its masses see fit, not how a Government demands it.
That's what I'm missing. Why this is accepted and not fought.
Dragon Magic
Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
I'm missing something that's been throughout this entire thread, when people argue in favour of this decision. Since when is it that internet sites do not have the right to choose what language they want to have their sites in, that they must make it French accessible, but yet Quebeccers have every right to be able to access the site in French?
Pardon me, but it's the business's decision to whom they cater, not being forced by the Government. Just as someone pointed out, what if a bookstore with only English Language books, for all those who wanted to learn English or knew English and wanted to read, setup shop there? Why would they have to cater to the French speakers, who probably would not want to shop there as frequently as English speakers? Forcing them to spend more money on something they won't use is just hurting the business, which will hurt the government with lost taxes.
Any Government which legislates mandatory restrictions on how people can speak, deal business, and live, to the point that it has to be this certain way and no other, has come down to the point of being a Fascist State. And that is not a State of which I would be proud.
Sure, the US Constitution makes exceptions where the general public or others may be harmed by exchange of words or print, but that's an extreme of harm. In Quebec, if you harm even the French Language or culture, or just not make everything about your business accessible for French speakers, you've done this imaginary harm.
Wake up, Quebeccers, you're a Fascist state when you let this happen. Stand up and demand that they stop with the iron grip, or you'll soon find that the DMCA, which sneaked into our laws, will be a wonderful law compared to what gets introduced for you.
Dragon Magic
Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
The supreme court considers that commercial free speech is not as valuable than personnal free speech for example.
Only e-commerce site are affected by "La charte de la langue française".
Well, this is what happens when you type things without quite paying attention!
So you're a karma whore, eh? For the right price, I'll be a karma pimp...
SIG: HUP
Personally, I think they should just make everything from the gov. French and leave the private industry alone, eh? C'est la vie...
So you're a karma whore, eh? For the right price, I'll be a karma pimp...
SIG: HUP
Well, since we're judging Canadians by the US Constitution (What? You mean the rest of the world ISN'T governed by the US Constitution??? Gasp!), I suppose I wouldn't be out of line pointing out the Mr. Coward that, in the US, the 1st amendment CAN be trumped. Were Quebec governed by the US Constitution, the Commerce Clause, in connection with the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment would not only allow for a law requiring that all commercial statements be made in both English and French, it would practically require it.
Substancial portions of Quebec speak either English or French, but not the other (at least, not to any great extent). To conduct business in only one of those languages is to discriminate against those who only speak the other - particularly given that both are the official languages of Quebec. The Commerce Clause gives the federal government the ability to regulate any commerce that in any way crosses state lines or is international (and was used, before the 14th amendment, to regulate discrimination in commerce - even seemingly local commerce). In Quebec, this would equate to having the authority to regulate commercial activity within the province (and with entities outside of the province). This power, I presume, is one a Canadian province has. The Equal Protection Clause guarantees that all persons within and state and among the states are treated equally by the law.
It is the law which governs the practice of commerce, and those engaging in commerce perform legal functions - such as the collection of taxes and regulatory information on customers. In the US it is the prevailing view in all three of our governmental branches at all levels that the government has a responsibility to ensure the extension of Equal Protection to the activities of commerce. That means that one can't refuse to enter into a commercial arrangement with someone else merely because they are, say, of a particular race. In Quebec, this applies to people who speak only French or English. Failing to communicate items essential to engaging in commerce in a language understandable by the customer is refusing to engage in commerce with them. Indeed, in the US, simply ignoring a customer in one's store because of their race (demonstrated by pattern of behavior) is discriminating against them and is illegal, despite "not speaking" being protected speech.
Further, there is nothing at all silly about the applicaiton of the law, nor does it "miss the point of the internet". As long as French speaking people in Quebec can access the site and the site is operated within the province, it's subject to the law, and the Quebec authorities have the responsibility to ensure access to the site by French speakers. As a parallel, if someone had a shop just outside of Quebec (the city) that sold really cheesy tourist stuff to English-speaking Americans, they wouldn't be exempt either.
The only stupidity that this action shows is the stupidity typical of people running internet businesses and thinking that they are somehow "special" or above the commercial laws of their jurisdiction because they're a "virtual" company and people in Addis Ababa can do business with them without having any idea where they're located.
I believe you would be told "this is a French country, learn the language, or leave. Preferably, leave."
Keep in mind those folks like to be as ethnically pure as possible. While collecting tax money from those they so despise.
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
RE: I think you're forgetting that the city of Montreal keeps talking about how proud they are about their multi-ethnic status,
;)
Montreal has also talked about seceding from Quebec if Quebec secedes from Canada. You're doing the equivalent of an American saying "yes, I know all about Canada. I stayed a couple of days in Toronto." Head up to Beauharnois or Riviere-De-Loup.
RE: and how the government keeps applying pressure to send immigrants to smaller cities (Sherbrooke, Quebec City, etc.)
a) The immigrants don't want to go (they only speak French in Quebec City!) b) the Quebecois pure laine ethnic purity before everything types in the banlieues don't want em.
RE: I was told that the people here are dumb and close-minded, but a massive amount of Arabs,
Like from French speaking Algeria...
RE: Africans,
Many parts of Africa speak French RE: Also, Quebec doesn't have a strong and invasive culture as the United-States, so merging cultures is much easier.
Well according to Bernard Landry we don't have any culture, period, and according to Lise Beaudoin France isn't French enough. To which I say relocate em ALL to Rimouski, wall em in with enough creton, Pepsi and Jos Louis and cigarettes to keep em for life. They can apply for Canadian government grants to play the spoons or whatever and keep their "Habitant" culture alive.
RE: p.s. I have a lebanese name/origin, I am also from italian, irish and quebecois origin.
Wow. How many parents did you have?
RE: I'm what you could call a "pure-Montrealer", since one of my parents is francophone, and the other anglophone; both are from different religions. Beat that
Then you're not pure laine. According to Parizeau it's your fault for ruining the separatist election.
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
However, if the page is heavy on text-in-pictures, or the Babelfish translation is ruled to be unacceptable, then this really is unfair. Small businesses can rarely afford to do time-consuming tasks (like translation), especially when this will provide no additional revenue.
Anyway, I agree with your points, I just didn't want you to think that our USAian language skills had degenerated *that* far :-)
"Biped! Good cranial development. Evidently considerable human ancestry."
The point is that the websites in the story were doing what they thought was prudent to reach their desired markets. Their government's response smacks of provicialist censorship.
OK,
- B
--
http://www.bradheintz.com/
- updated
If you have decided that you want to protect your language, then you have already committed yourself to insanity.
"Protecting" a language in this fashion is like declaring with force of law that a certain joke is funny or that a given piece of art is beautiful.
The apex of this idiocy, of course, is France's Academie Francaise, 40 white-haired and morally bankrupt old farts who determine which words shall or shall not be permitted to enter the French vocabulary, based on their presumed consistency with contrived principles of linguistic purity.
Where do people come up with this sort of thing? Do they think the French language was handed down from God in one piece on a silver platter? Do they not realize that all languages are the product of mixing and swirling and borrowing and growing?
Language is a tool. People use it to communicate with each other, and built upon that, the rest of society functions. There are advantages to maintaining a modicum of consistency in a language, because this reduces ambiguities and makes it easier for people to understand each other. But nobody is arguing that the introduction of foreign words or the use of English is making it hard for people to understand each other. They are arguing that the purity of the language is being compromised.
Leaving aside from the fallacious presumption that the language is magically "pure" today despite the fact that it's changed considerably over the years, this is fundamentally a sentimental issue. Some people like the language the way it is. That's fine. But sentiment neither requires nor deserves force of law. If it is important to people, they'll find ways to assist it. If they don't care, then it deserves all the government protection that the US gives to the sanctity of a bad '70s movie: A cultural product whose time has come and gone.
This is nothing more than one more form of the most childish and destructive of humankind's many throwback urges: nationalism. And any government that coddles or encourages this nonsense is doing a grave disservice to its people.
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
Excuse me? One thing that keeps me confident that the US government has not yet taken leave of its senses is that it has not participated in the language wars.
In fact, the government produces materials in as many languages as necessary to serve various populations.
Spanish is rapidly on the rise, and there have been no serious efforts (aside from the occasional redneck crackpot) to check it. This is excellent news: If people want to speak Spanish, let them speak Spanish. If it works out for them, great. If not, they'll have to learn English. It's THEIR choice.
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
Never in all my years have I so wished I could take back all my posts on a topic so that I could instead mod someone else up.
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
I'm pretty far left of centre, but have always been deeply suspicious of "group rights."
The government of India's system of quotas for various "backward" castes, the dysfunctional kludges that are called the Belgian and Lebanese governments, and the Quebecker's continuing deranged attempt to legislate language, are prime examples of how disastrous these efforts can become. In the US, initiatives of this sort tend to be racially-based, but the bad idea has been tried all over the world for any number of reasons and seems to have failed everywhere. This is probably an indication that we need to achieve fairness by other means.
Tell me, would the language police shut down an English-language site that called for repeal of the province's law forcing French down its citizens' throats?
Get your teeth into a small slice: the cake of liberty
We can all thank Trudeau for a worthless constitution which allows for such nonsense.
Ryan T. Sammartino
Ryan T. Sammartino
"Ancora imparo"
I've lived in Quebec all my life. I am not French. I have hated every single aspect of "our" government since the day I was refused to be allowed into an English highschool. You see, they have something called "Bill 101", basically stating that if neither of your parents went to a French school in their youth, you will have to go to an French school. I fought this, along with a few friends for my senior year. Our current priminister has suggested in the past to force all universities to become FRENCH only. This includes McGill, one of the top universities in the world. Our politicians do not care about the citizens, just their language. For a city to have legal "bilingual" status, it must have 50% MOTHER TONGUE english. This means any immigrants who can't speak french, but can speak english and their own tongue, do not boost up the majority. Damn them and their feeble weak minds. Thankfully everyone, INCLUDING the french, are sick of the "Parti Quebecois", and next election the liberals are practically guaranteed to be in office.
As anybody who has taken intro to linguistics can tell you (that's all I've taken ;) ), one of the primary ways language evolves is by picking up things by other languages.
One of the other things you learn is that The Man (in whatever form) insists that the language is deteriorating and the world will end if the language changes.
At the end of the day, the language changes, and the world doesn't end. And the language police (in the U.S., english teachers) pick a new thing and say 'if this changes, the world will end.'
The only result is that people have a much more difficult time with their lives, because they must learn a different dialect from what they actually speak to be accepted into society.
Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone
I can't remember the name of the guy, or probably the entire story correctly -- but I', sure some sociology major is reading this and can get us some info?
Free Techno/Jazz/DNB/MI Music by guys obsessed with monkeys!
I understand people wanting to preserve culture (etc.) but at gunpoint? What does this say about Quebec (and France) that they must legislate the use of French? Doesn't that fact alone mean the battle has been lost?
Ah well. The rantings of an English-speaking American...
--
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
There were alot more English speaking people in Quebec back then, 25% throughout the province, and 50% in Montreal. Now it's more like 10%/35%. These laws were brought in place by the French majority with the goal of oppressing the english and encouraging them to leave. And it worked, they have driven hundreds of thousands of english people out of the province over the past 30 years, myself included last year.
after all, it is the language that the great majority of people in that province speak!
Spoken like a true oppressor. If we follow your logic, the federal government should pass laws enforcing the use of english since the great majority of people speak English in Canada. Oh what, now you don't think things are fair?
Now, I still fail to see how insisting that both languages be used somehow hinders your free speech... just speak freely in both languages!
That is complete utter crap. The provicial government passed laws banning the use of english signs, the law was over ruled in the early 90's when some people complained to the U.N. and the U.N. forced the Quebec governement to change it's laws. That's the only reason english signs are allowed. If the P.Q. fundamentalist had their way, it would even be illegal for english schools to exist.
It is a simple matter of preventing a strong culture to disappear amidst the mass of american culture surrounding it.
If a culture is strong, it does not need protection. The English Canadian Culture does quite well without any protection and we are even more exposed to american influence then the french. I still insist on using "colour" and "night", not "color" and "nite"; I like hockey, not basketball (well, technically that's Canadian too); I drink Beer, not watered down horse piss; guns suck, healthcare rulez, etc, etc. How many Canadians do you see wrapping themselves in the American flags saying "Praise the Lord, pass me my gun"?
There is nothing to it about preventing free speech.
The U.N dissagreed.
btw, on the suject of the article, this is not the first time the Language Police has gone after internet sites, the first and most famous case was against microbytes.
RE: How many Canadians do you see wrapping themselves in the American flags saying "Praise the Lord, pass me my gun"?
Me and many other brain-drainers who took Chretien up on his oft-repeated line "hiff you doan like hawl dem tax, den you can leaf for da younited state."
I'll leave your schizophrenic (Albertan fundamentalists on one side, Quebecois militants on theother), rights-removing, tax-fattened, opportunity starved, falling to pieces by the day socialist paradise.
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
Just curious.
OK,
- B
--
http://www.bradheintz.com/
- updated
I see. As long as you don't force somebody to take down a politically offensive website (where "politically offensive" is defined as "in English" by the Canadian authorities), it isn't censorship. So it wouldn't be censorship to fine a person for saying something "wrong", and eventually bankrupt them.
Right. Face fine for speaking your mind. That's not censorship.
Correct me where I'm wrong, but free speech does, to a certain extent, mean "free as in beer". In other words, I don't have to pay the government for the right to speak my mind. And I don't have to pay fines for speaking offensively.
Yes, the sites can simply place French text on their websites. But goddammit, maybe speaking English is a political statement!
So as another poster has mentioned, this is nothing new in Quebec. And driving out (e-) commerce is nothing new. There was a mass exodus of businesses in the last seventies and early eighties from Montreal to Toronto.
The Pequistes who began rewriting French to be free of foreign influence (e.g., the state declared "web" to be, henceforth, "oueb") don't seem to be aware that enforcing the insular nature of Quebec French is the most efficient way they could possibly kill the language. No lingua franca, spoken by a large majority within its region, as is French, ever died because of foreign signage and loan-words. Take the below sentence, for example:
"Language is a constantly changing art"
The only words in that sentence that English didn't borrow from French are "is" and "a". "language, "constant", "change" and "art" are all French loan-words. Similarly, French borrowed them from Latin. The fact that French coexisted with English as a major language of England after the Norman conquest and lent it much of its vocabularly didn't impede English's eventual emergence as a trade language. In fact, becoming a trade language is specifically what saved English. If Quebec French attempts to isolate itself from trade and engineer a linguistic-supremicist "High French", it's sealing its own fate and assuring its demise.