Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Quebec Language Police Target Store Owner's Facebook Page

Posted by timothy on from the at-least-they-don't-require-german dept.

New submitter wassomeyob writes "In Canada, the province of Quebec has their Official Language Act of 1974 (aka Bill 22) which makes French their sole official language. It has famously been used to force business owners to modify signage to give French pre-eminance over other languages. Now, the Quebec language police seem to be extending their reach to Facebook. Eva Cooper owns Delilah in the Parc — a shop in Chelsea, Quebec near the Quebec/Ontario border. She received a letter from the language office telling her to translate everything posted on her store's Facebook page into French."

16 of 506 comments (clear)

  1. Well, see, the problem occurred in 1974. by Huntr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Language Police"

    Anything after that is kind of irrelevant.

  2. much ado about nothing by vux984 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ok, its a stupid law, and I'm not going to defend it.

    But if the Quebec based store is maintaining a website, it needs to have a french translation, and a company's facebook page is little different than a geocities site from 1998, and is just another form of advertising for the company so this is entirely consistent with how the law has been enforced in the past.

    1. Re:much ado about nothing by i+kan+reed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Should it really, though? If you run a store on a border town, where the majority don't actually speak french, should some demi-nationalists be able to dictate your areas culture?

      It'd be like the rest of Canada forcing the Quebecois to have English everywhere.

    2. Re:much ado about nothing by i+kan+reed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm pretty sure your solution is

      A. Retarded, because having land in multiple provinces doesn't exempt you from their laws
      B. Highly impractical, because a border town doesn't necessarily straddle a border
      and
      C. Obviously meant as an stupidly elaborate work-around for an unnecessary situation.

    3. Re:much ado about nothing by CastrTroy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's one thing for the government to have to serve the people in a certain language, it's another thing entirely to force business owners to operate their business in a specific language. If people don't speak the languages offered by the business, then the business either won't survive, due to lack of customers, or it will survive, because there are enough people who speak the language, in which case, they serve their customers just fine. It's amazing that in a multicultural city like Montreal, that it's completely fine for businesses to operate to not speak any English, but against the law for them to not speak French.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    4. Re:much ado about nothing by i+kan+reed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, to get rid of laws enforcing cultural hegemonies, which tend to be short-sighted, ineffective, and harmful.

    5. Re:much ado about nothing by scamper_22 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It depends on what your definition of society is.

      Some people view society as little more than a financial transaction with the government. I pay my tax. I get these services.

      Others view society as sharing common values and culture. And this is a feedback loop. Government influences culture and values and people influence government.

      I don't understand the attachment to language, but I know people do. I'm of Indian descent and there are lots of Indians who have a strong attachment to language. Many will say, we need to keep our language. The kids will learn English in school anyways. So I have plenty of exposure to this French way of thinking.

      Quebec, for whatever reason wishes to maintain its culture, which includes the French Language. I think that is a valid goal even if I don't agree with it. But I acknowledge I'm an odd person who doesn't get attached to symbols and I'm a live and let live person.

      Believe it or not, I think white people have a right to their culture as much as all other cultures on Earth. I don't get why white people are so keen on making sure immigrants get to keep their culture while doing nothing to support their own. But whatever... that is a side rant.

      Does it go too far? Maybe. Maybe not. I don't live in Quebec. I live in the evil Toronto. But I certainly don't think invalid for a country/province/area to try and enforce its culture. Maybe it is a losing fight. I happen to think so. I'd much rather try and push culture positively by having quality French based media, controlling immigration... than punitive things like this.

      But I think it is a strange day when people don't think a government has a role in culture of the society it governments.

  3. Typical by Kimomaru · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Quebec has some bizarre sensibilities, they're definitely not into this whole people-can-decide-what's-best-for-themselves crap. If you think that's bad, you should see their tax rate - believe it or not, taxes go to supporting these bizarre laws. Anyone under the age of 30 who wants to make a life for themselves, in my oppinion, should live anywhere else in Canada.

  4. Re: And in other news... by NotDrWho · · Score: 3, Insightful

    we all know english people won't make any efforts to learn french even if the live in france directly

    A shit-ton of French students in high schools and colleges across the U.S. would beg to differ, Monsieur.

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
  5. Re: And in other news... by SJHillman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Quebec isn't a country. French or otherwise.

  6. Facebook hosted in Quebec? by Zeromous · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Facebook is an American storefront, not a Quebec one. I did not read the article but this seems very wrong indeed.

    --
    ---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
  7. Re: And in other news... by kbdd · · Score: 4, Insightful
    As an immigrant who started learning English in school, I have no objection to anyone using the language of their choice for whatever private purpose they want to. However, I have an issue with the government (local, state or federal) spending taxpayer's money to make government services available in languages other than English. It seems to be common courtesy that if you want to move in and live in a country, you learn the local language as a courtesy to the locals you are invading as a mark of respect.

    Similarly, I am very offended when I call a bank or any other local business and the first thin I am asked is if I speak Spanish, to press '9'.

    Now, I also recognize that "speaking English" is not a strict definition. Many natives don't do that very well.

  8. Re: And in other news... by iCEBaLM · · Score: 4, Insightful

    shut the fuck up asshole. we all know english people won't make any efforts to learn french even if the live in france directly.

    I am Canadian, I live in Ontario, I am an anglophone, and I went to french immersion school for 4 years, with about 90 other students in my class, and studied with Rosetta Stone for two, but I live in an almost exclusively english area.

    I can read french pretty well, but I can't really speak it well due to lack of practice. So anyways, english people do make efforts to learn french. It's usually the French people who put us off of it with attitudes like yours.

  9. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  10. Re:Why so defensive about French? by vux984 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Alright... how about a business that discriminates against blacks? Or the disabled?

    if the trash is completely on the stores property

    Will the extra rats the trash attracts also stay on the stores property?

    the market will likely take care of it.

    How so? A restaurant can maintain a presentable dining room whilst maintaining a disgustingly unsanitary kitchen and food storage areas. The market might take care of it eventually, but how many people need to get sick (even die) before the 'market' catches on.

    again, if the chemicals get off the property then we have a problem. if the chemicals stay on the property, not your / our / my problem.

    Even if they are harmful to the employees?

    the deal worked out between the person selling labor and the person buying labor is between those parties, and not your / our / my business.

    So locking them in at night so they can't escape a fire is ok, or working with hazardous chemicals without adequate safety equipment is fine too (as above) as long they were desperate enough for food to feed their family to agree to those terms?

    The market has long track record of ensuring the wealthy capitalist who owns the property and the means of production doesn't take advantage or abuse the fact that he tends to have a massive advantage* when negotiating wages and working conditions right?

    That advantage being that he can generally easily afford not to hire someone today; and his business will continue to run and earn him money. Whilst a potential employee needs to eat and provide himself shelter each day, whether he works or not. Its only when employees band together into some sort of 'united front' that they can negotiate on the same level... but these united fronts for negotiation, or 'unions' are the root of all evil I'm sure.

  11. Re:We are looser, that's it. by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    English does have some nice features. For example it's one of the few languages that doesn't arbitaraily assign genders to non-gendered words. If you want to talk about a table, you don't have to memorize whether someone thousands of years ago decided tables are male or female for no logical reason.