LeCoq
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2020
I appreciate the fact you preface by saying it is maybe a east/west thing, but you are simply wrong. I think that is shows how much anglos live in a bubble to say so.It could be an east/west thing because the francophone presence in the western provinces is almost non-existent--certainly not enough to justify bilingualism as policy. Unless you want a job with the federal government, there is no reason to learn French in British Columbia, Alberta, etc. J.J.'s main contention with Quebec and bilingualism appears to be how it fosters an unearned sense of superiority among the elites in Ottawa (which sits on the Ontario/Quebec border) where it's a requirement. I find it hard to dispute when Trudeau claimed Quebecois supremacy over Albertan in an interview from over a decade ago. He's a two-faced prick who will say one thing in English and then the opposite in French if would benefit him.
Bilinguism as a policy does not exist only for pratical reason: it is also to protect the historical french communities (e.g. franco-albertan, franco-manitoban) present in all provinces except maybe British columbia before the anglos communities, and repair the damage already done to them by provincial governements who passed force assimilation policies.
If in Alberta and Manitoba the frenchs are a minority, it is because of tentatives of cultural genocide. By the way, as an Acadian, it is why I appreciate the fact that Québec is still part of Canada: it would much harder to fight for blinguism without their demographic weight.
As for J.J. statements, it's called populism. Now I know that, no gonna lie, I have an even worst opinion of him.
Finally, if we think about the same interviews, Trudeau said the best president were Québecois. We share the same distain for Trudeau (He is not even a real french, he is like 1/4 french), but it is clearly not what he said.