Sign up to fight unilinguaphobia!

MARK STEYN: Why should Canada’s single-language masses accept rule by their bilingual betters?

by Mark Steyn on Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:40am - 414 Comments

Chris Wattie/ Reuters

After two years, my campaign to rid the nation of its “human rights” commissions doesn’t seem to be going anywhere. So, in a spirit of rapprochement, let me try a new tack. Given that there seems to be insufficient actionable racism, sexism, homophobia and Islamophobia to justify the budgets of the “human rights” regime, how about a new ground for complaint?
Unilinguaphobia.

As we know, every job that matters in Canada is bilingual, from her viceregal eminence in Rideau Hall down to the village postmistress in Pakenham, Ont. The House of Commons has just passed, all but unnoticed, a bill requiring that henceforth all Supreme Court justices should be able to hear cases in English and French without the aid of an interpreter. That’s to say, it’s not enough to be a distinguished jurist capable of a little light banter with a francophone colleague or a discussion of Denys Arcand’s oeuvre at a Canada Council cocktail party: you have to be able to understand highly technical legalisms in a language other than your own, unaided. As things stand, three of the nine judges have to come from Quebec. If the new bill takes effect, it’s hard to imagine any jurist west of Ontario ever meeting the qualifications.

As the Ottawa Citizen’s Dan Gardner recently pointed out (full disclosure: he thinks I’m an alarmist buffoon, so he’s obviously a reliable source), a rip-roaring total of 9.4 per cent of Canadian anglophones are bilingual. This was, of course, M. Trudeau’s great insight when he presided over the expansion of official bilingualism from the very modest provisions of the British North America Act: as the minority, francophones would have the greater incentive to learn the other language, and thus, being overrepresented among the bilingual labour pool, would increase their presence at the highest levels of Canadian life. Yet, even among francophones, only 42 per cent are bilingual.

By the way, these aren’t ready-for-my-Supreme-Court-oral-argument-now bilinguals. These are self-identified polyglots, the overwhelming majority of whom rest their claims to bilingualism on their ability to go into a restaurant in Trois-Rivières and order a café au lait and a croissant. And, if the waiter returns with a Dr Pepper and poutine à l’italienne, hey, close enough.

But, putting that aside, what those numbers mean in practice is that about 83 per cent of Canadians are ineligible for Canada’s most prominent jobs. In America, anyone can grow up to be president. In Canada, only eligible members of the House of Windsor can grow up to be queen. But, given those restrictive entry requirements, it seems perverse that over four-fifths of Canadians can never grow up even to be governor general.

Ah, well, you say, that’s the highest office in the land: is it unreasonable to require that those who reach for such heights do so with a foot on both rungs of the linguistic ladder?

Okay, but go back to that village post office in Pakenham, Ont. Pakenham is in the municipality of Mississippi Mills, but for Canada Post purposes it falls within the “National Capital Region” and therefore has to have bilingual postmasters, even though it’s a unilingual English village. Mississippi Mills has about 11,000 anglophones and 500 francophones, and, given that the sub-jurisdiction has around 500 folks and operating on the assumption of a population distribution not significantly different from the municipality as a whole, Pakenham would have approx 478 anglos and 22 francophones. The acting postmistress, Jeanne Barr, said the only people who ever came in to buy stamps in French were undercover agents from the linguistic division of Canada Post. “They always do the same thing. They want two stamps,” she told the Ottawa Citizen. Nevertheless, in December Ms. Barr was replaced as postmistress because of insufficient French, and offered a choice as a “rover” filling in for sick time and holidays at post offices within a 50-km radius or transferring to Kinburn and taking a 20-hour-a-week job as a rural-route mail deliverer. Ms. Barr went to the media, kicked up a fuss, and got her termination put on hold—for now. At nearby Almonte, another unilingual postmistress kept her head down and found herself, in the Ottawa Sun’s words, “relegated to a backroom assignment.” In a 96 per cent anglophone community, an anglophone postal worker cannot be permitted to interact with the public.

Try this thought experiment. Let’s say you’re black or gay or Muslim and you apply for a job with a private company—Maclean’s, say, or Mark Steyn Global Megacorp Inc. And I say, “Okay, we’ll put you on the payroll, but you’ll have to work in the backroom. Nothing personal, but I’d rather you weren’t seen by the customers.” I might have compelling commercial reasons for so doing: frankly, you’re a bit of a limp-wristed queen, and I’m in the macho sporting-goods business. But you’d reject that argument with a toss of your curls and flounce off to the “human rights” commission. And they’d reject it, too, and nail my homophobic ass to the wall.

And that’s not even the right analogy: what’s happening in Pakenham is like me owning a store in Montreal’s Gay Village and still relegating you to the backroom. In Almonte, the downgraded postmistress is the non-visible majority. In the Racism Awareness classes, you’re taught to keep an eye out for signs that the boss prefers to keep you at the back of the store. Yet what’s Racism 101 in the ethnic grievance business is government policy at Canada Post.

Bookmark and Share
  • Paul Monroe

    Steyn is right on target again. The assumption (or better yet the obligation) of bilinguism is based on what? It is in fact a very elitist thing that promotes abiding by a ridiculous rule instead of real competence. A very Canadian thing: make it obligatory to abide by rules and regulations even if they don't make any sense. Being obedient is viewed as better than using basic common sense. And it is Steyn , the so-called rebel , who has to remind us what common-sense is.
    At least, the anglophone media discusses this issue. Here in Montreal it is like one is in the twilight zone – the media paints a completely different picture: one based on fear for the survival of the language, prejudice against immigrants, protection of certain groups (unionized workers, the cousins, you know) and shady government practices. Here in Québec the problem is always the others – french quebecers are a kind of perfect kind of people who cannot make mistakes. That's why it is almost unbearable living here.

  • François Perrin

    *spoken

  • Martin

    What's the official language of the United States? There is none. Doesn't that make the US in many ways MORE open to languages? By having no official language, they are ALL official languages. There have been one or two local jurisdictions that have passed English only laws–there have also been a few that have passed Spanish-only laws, especially small hamlets in Texas along the border, but federally anything goes. If you want to take your citizenship test–you have to ask, which language? Mandarin? Russian? Polish? Spanish? Italian? Hindi? Farsi? Tagalog? The list is endless. Same thing goes for driver's license tests. But unlike in the Great White Utopia up north, it's all a choice. It's up to the individual to decide which language suits him best. Isn't that just like the United States? What a horrible country!

  • Charlene

    I live in Ottawa and the situation here is unbelieveable. It took me over 2 years to find a job that I was qualified for, because almost every job counts being able to speak French as a necessity. I've lived and worked in Ottawa for 20 years and it has never, ever been a necessity. Even when I tried to sign up for training…sponsored by our Canadian government, I was turned down as it was only available if you were bilingual. People don't realize what they are creating, because it isn't any Anglophones that try to learn to speak French that are getting the country. It's the Quebecers and that's scary, cause it's stupid and we are letting it happen. I intend to move away from Ottawa soon to somewhere that actually feels like Canada

  • Odin

    You’re right, nobody has psoted the stats, and since we are talking a small sliver of the population, I think it would be reasonble to conclude that the pool is even smaller at this level. And it gets worse the further west you go. Talk about alienating a region. As far as the provincial laws go, do you not find it a tad hipocritical that quebec wants the rest of Canada to be bilingual while they pass laws declaring themselves unilingual french. THEY ARE SIMPLE 1 PROVINCE, AND SHOULD BE TREATED AS SUCH. We already have francophone judges, which is fine by me. But I live by the axiom of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

  • Martin

    What's the official language of the United States? There is none. Doesn't that make the US in many ways MORE open to languages? By having no official language, they are ALL official languages. There have been one or two local jurisdictions that have passed English only laws–there have also been a few that have passed Spanish-only laws, especially small hamlets in Texas along the border, but federally anything goes. If you want to take your citizenship test–you have to ask, which language? Mandarin? Russian? Polish? Spanish? Italian? Hindi? Farsi? Tagalog? The list is endless. Same thing goes for driver's license tests. But unlike in the Great White Utopia up north, it's all a choice. It's up to the individual to decide which language suits him best. Isn't that just like the United States? What a horrible country!

  • J. Bunn

    Each and every day Canada reveals itself to be the joke of a nation that it is. Not in the "I hate Canda" joke sense that people bash the United States…. but a true, complete, irrevelent joke. A country that is literally run by geezers dressed like elves. The joke comes when canadians take themselves so seriously. They actually see their country as some kind of beacon. It's not even a flash light! Even the U.S. state of Massachusetts legalized gay marriage before Canada. We're nothing but a parody of liberal ideology. The joke is on us. Thank God I moved to the U.S.

  • Deb

    To Julien a week ago!

    You're a racist, a separatist and a bigot, and English Canada doesn't like you. Your arrogance is despicable and your comments should make any rationale thinking Canadian embarrased. Francophones will never, ever be happy and it is costing this country trillions of dollars to try and keep you folks in it when you really don't want to be so pack your f&&^% bags and hightail your a&&&out of here. Don't let the door hit you on your way out, and boy do I ever have a finger for you!

  • Fernpeter

    I enjoy reading Mark Steyn in Macleans, however this time he seems to have erred regarding the postmistress in Pakenham. She was offered the job of postmistress as a temporary position while the post office looked for a qualified one. She agreed to those conditions when she accepted the position. Once a qualified person was found to fill the position she decided to protest since she would go back to her other position that she did not like. No one was TERMINATED, no one lost their job. If you had read other comments she made you would have realised that there are francophones who live in her community and as she states INSIST on speaking french. Gee are french services available only if you dont speak a word of english so if you are a bilingual francophone you dont have the right to french services.
    That is news to me. By that notion since most anglophones in Quebec are now bilingual they dont need services in their language ie schools, hospitals universites etc

  • Deb

    To Funny Boy about a week ago.

    How dare you call anyone "mentally retarded" if they can't speak English and French. You mister are one very sick puppy and f***you too! Your English sucks and you sound very, very illiterate. Where do you work – or do you – you're probably on welfare!

  • Fred

    Bilingualism is racism against both the English and French.

    Both are to be ruled over by elitists who in many cases have as their only qualification the fact that grew up naturally speaking both languages. Sort of like natuarlly growing just happening to be white or asian.

    They just happen to be from Montreal or Moncton and just happen to be from in many cases a mixed race anglo/norman family.

    It keeps people with talent out of jobs and makes for an incompetent public service.

    French is a complete language in itself and people in Quebec City should be able to uses it completely for all aspects of their life.
    Likewise with English in Saint John.

    Bilingualism is an attempt by Trudeau and Quebec Liberals to break the backbone of all free market culture and subject us to statist rule.

    Why is Quebec the only province in Canada to stand up to this?

  • Canadian in Berlin

    Guess what anglophone conservatives? You can LEARN French. That's right, it's not discrimination: you can pick up a book/join a class and learn the language. WOW.

  • Greg

    Joel Cuerrier does not know what he is talkinig about ("English is the only official language of federal jurisdiction in the US).

    For your information, "English is the de facto national language of the United States, with 82% of the population claiming it as a mother tongue, and some 96% claiming to speak it "well" or "very well". However, NO OFFICIAL LANGUAGE EXISTS AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL." – From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

  • http://www.languagefairness.ca Kim McConnell

    To "Canadian in Berlin", the Official Languages Act, passed in 1969 has been supported by billions of dollars and the result is abysmal. The percentage of bilingual Canadians is still only about 17% – not much different from the days when it wasn't a social engineering scheme that has only benefited the French-speakers who are concentrated mainly in Quebec, New Brunswick and Eastern Ontario. If you know the situation at all, you wouldn't scoff at the failure of the English-speakers to learn French – it is a language rarely heard outside the three regions I've mentioned. A policy that benefits only a minority and gives them the instrument to take control of the majority is wrong, no matter which way you look at it. Kudos to Mark Steyn for having the courage to expose this as he has exposed other human rights violations!! Kim

  • MacLean's Regular

    And we are now on to the second page of Steyn commentary, otherwise known as the bottom of the barrel, where the unrepentant bigots and chauvinists show up with their pungent commentary thinly disguised as reverse-racism.

  • Joël Cuerrier

    That's a bit of a sophistry. It goes without saying that knowing anything commutatively makes you a smarter person. If you read all of Shakespeare or Molière, it certainly gives you a different approach to life. Language however is different, it’s in the connections you can make. People think in too pragmatic terms. Reading philosophy is an absolute waste of time, so is learning astronomy or mathematic, for most people. That is how I’ve notice time and again people makes the argument that knowing French is not something they use on a day to day basis. It’s also true that knowing the definition of “wherefore” won’t help you much on a day to day basis, cause you won’t use it at the grocery store. Is this the only justification for knowing of something, anything… that it have a practical use? So, to resume, I think schools waste a lot of time on meaningless subjects, cause it became a tool to assimilate the citizen into a certain mould, forgoing on things like intellectual capacity. Surely, the way we learn have also changed dramatically, due in part to the technology you are using right now. At no other point in history did people become so knowledgeable about so many things, for the very reason that your memory can always be refreshed at the click of a button. This, above everything else, changes the dynamic of education. I could claim to understand complex scientific phenomenon that I generally do not, all I’d need to do is google it and get back to you with my made-up answer about things I ignored until I searched for it 5 minutes ago. You know all of history, every minor details about the life of any given artist, you remember exactly when Louis Pasteur made his breakthrough… and yes, you are a make-belief biologist too if you can google fast enough. I think that, as this thing evolves, as the Internet comes to take more room in our life (as it does now), we will become very different creatures. In that way, I think learning languages is one of the very few areas where there is no substitute from actually making the effort of memorizing and learning it. We’re all historians and we all can quote philosophers at the click of a button otherwise.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Turtler Turtler

    And they couldn't have made it if it were not for you- THE unrepentant bigot and chauvinist- paving the way for them.

  • François Perrin

    It is such horse manure to here this rhetorical lamentation against bilingualism. Judging by many of the posts here, one would think French is so impossible to learn unless you're a little kid. Wrong. Like any worthwhile activity, learning a new language takes some work, practice and dedication. I think that's the least we can ask of people in the public service' ESPECIALLY in the National Capital.

    In any case, if you live in this country and can't speak a word of French, it's your own darn fault, because there is certainly no shortage of learning opportunities. Kids start in primary school and because of their laziness and that of their parents, will not commit themselves to French class the way they will to other subjects. Why? The answer is only typical of English-speaking people the world over. 'Why should we have to learn another language when everyone already speaks English?'

    I'm as fed up with Quebec's whining as the next guy, but that is a completely different issue. The capacity of the federal government to be able to communicate in both languages is essential. The fact that so many of you speak so glibly about this nation's birthplace being removed from the country only because you're terrified that one day you or your children (whom you laud invariably as being so 'gifted' and 'brilliant' each one) might actually have to learn a second language if they want to become Prime Minister or a Supreme Court justice, is simply stupefying.

    As for the article itself, once again Steyn proves himself to be the philistine that he really is, with a completely unimportant piece of trash which neither says nor contributes a single idea which hasn't already appeared somewhere else.

    Most Canadians are kept out of government jobs by bilingual requirements? I'd say most Canadians don't know anything about their government in the first place, so why should they be worried about whether or not they can work for it? They're too busy watching 'Lost' and imagining that they occupy a place in an American culture that only has enough consideration for them to occasionally make fun of them using the same stupid jokes every time.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Viva_Vivian Viva_Vivian

    Every Canadian worth their salt knows the history of Canada's colonization. Your self-righteous history lesson serves no purpose here; it relates not at all to my point about interpreters, which is salient to the article at hand. Steyn did not write about Aboriginals. What I will say about Aboriginals in the court system is that they have their own statute which they (full-blooded to 1/8th according to Gladue law) and they alone are subject to. They are not subject to "the white man's laws," so again, your point is irrelevant.

    Second, the Mandarin issue is completely salient to what Steyn is writing about. This is the legal enforcement of unilingualism in China and bilingualism in Canada. It is now illegal to hire a Supreme Court judge, fully qualified, who speaks solely English or French, which is their constitutional right. Bilingualism is not mandatory in all schools so it is an unfair, self-selecting precedent.

  • Anna D

    Rhetorical lamentation against bilingualism?What about Quebec,they don't want it.And by the way Quebec goes out of it's way tho keep it's pure laine and immigrants unilingual,I know I've seen it, outside the Montreal area there are so many who literally can't say one word of English,so don't say the English parents are lazy, maybe they don't need it,you sound just like the separatists who have a sense of entitlement and think everyone should speak French just because they say so.97% of Canadians excluding the province of Quebec speak English and shouldn't have to bend over backwards for a minority.And as for the American culture reference,maybe you should ween your Quebec youth off of the AMERICAN gangsta rap they love so much.

  • François Perrin

    They go out of their way to keep people unilingual by requiring them to study English from grade four up? And when I say require, I don't mean in the way that English-Canadian 'require' their kids to 'study' French. I mean English a subject as important as math and science.

    No one is arguing that Quebeckers don't consume American media, but unlike English-Canadians, this doesn't confuse them about who they are. US cultural dominance in English Canada goes far beyond anything that can be observed elsewhere, least of all in Quebec.

    Lastly, I spent many years living in Saguenay-Lac-St-Jean, which is the most heavily francophone region in all of North America, 600km north of MTL, and if I had wanted to I could have lived my entire life there in English. Some people actually do.

    Lastly, you are correct to say that Quebec doesn't want bilingualism at the PROVINCIAL level, and nobody suggests that all provinces should be bilingual. But we are talking about a federal government that has to serve a Canadian population that is almost 1/4 francophone. How could one even imagine that such a government could maintain legitimacy in that population if it cannot even communicate in its language?

    You expect Quebeckers to follow the laws of a federal government that can't even speak French? You expect individual men and women in Quebec who pay federal income tax to do so if the federal government can't speak French?

From Macleans