You are quoting me having modified my words, so you are not engaging with this in good faith.
Signage laws are not human rights abuses.
The right to work in French is not a human right abuse.
Making a strawman of it doesn’t change reality.
My rights as a Quebec anglophone have been better respected in the last 100 years than the rights of francophones in Ontario, Manitoba and New Brunswick. We should be proud of this heritage we built for ourselves in Quebec. Our cultural rights are legally protected.
Yes you are simping for American companies who have literally been pressuring the federal government for weeks/months/years to cave on every single language protection.
Small businesses have been, at worst, mildly inconvenienced in the last 50 years of signage laws existing. Society has been fine, apart from angryphones bitching now and then.
I was paraphrasing you. But OK, then we’ll play by your rules:
Signage laws are not human rights abuses.
If they restrict what I’m allowed to write in which language, that’s a restriction of my freedom of speech, which is a human right. Next.
The right to work in French is not a human right abuse.
Making a strawman of it doesn’t change reality.
I never said it was. But ah, the accusations that are actually confessions. Next.
My rights as a Quebec anglophone have been better respected in the last 100 years than the rights of francophones in Ontario, Manitoba and New Brunswick
Hmm, weird, I don’t recall laws forcing Francophones in Ontario to run their businesses in English, make their signage English, forcing them to go to English schools, and a whole range of other things.
Yes you are simping
Ah, another accusation that’s actually a confession. Next.
Society has been fine, apart from angryphones bitching now and then.
Yeah, when a significant portion of the province’s politics are “how can we further restrict what is allowed to be done in one language while using the excuse of protecting another language as a way to drown out any opposition”, society is not fine.
-Commercial speech is not protected speech and is highly regulated in every democratic country.
What a cop out. They regulate things like false advertising, not the words and the language you’re allowed to put on your signs. False equivalency.
-The right to work in French is the basis of why workplace language laws exist.
That’s like saying “the right for white people to work is the basis of why segregation laws exist”. It’s absolutely unnecessary and a sorry excuse for trampling on people’s rights.
-Yeah actually, read your history. French schools were banned by those provinces at different times.
To be fair, I was thinking of more recent times, but fine, let’s go back 100 years. Manitoba had restrictions on teaching French, but that’s only an earlier part of the last hundred years. Regulation 17 in Ontario was repealed in 1927, so one of the last 100 years was affected. New Brunswick, on the contrary, even promoted french very strongly with a goal of becoming a bilingual province. So no, you can’t say that the last 100 years were generally worse for Francophones in Canada than the present is for anglophones in Quebec. And even if it were the case, what’s your point? “They suffered, so you have to suffer too”? What a pitiful argument. But it shows the hypocrisy fairly well: when it happens to Francophones in Canada: “bad, unacceptable repression”, when it happens to anglophones in Quebec: “necessary measures to protect the French language”. Give me a break.
You are quoting me having modified my words, so you are not engaging with this in good faith.
Signage laws are not human rights abuses.
The right to work in French is not a human right abuse.
Making a strawman of it doesn’t change reality.
My rights as a Quebec anglophone have been better respected in the last 100 years than the rights of francophones in Ontario, Manitoba and New Brunswick. We should be proud of this heritage we built for ourselves in Quebec. Our cultural rights are legally protected.
Yes you are simping for American companies who have literally been pressuring the federal government for weeks/months/years to cave on every single language protection.
Small businesses have been, at worst, mildly inconvenienced in the last 50 years of signage laws existing. Society has been fine, apart from angryphones bitching now and then.
I was paraphrasing you. But OK, then we’ll play by your rules:
If they restrict what I’m allowed to write in which language, that’s a restriction of my freedom of speech, which is a human right. Next.
I never said it was. But ah, the accusations that are actually confessions. Next.
Hmm, weird, I don’t recall laws forcing Francophones in Ontario to run their businesses in English, make their signage English, forcing them to go to English schools, and a whole range of other things.
Ah, another accusation that’s actually a confession. Next.
Yeah, when a significant portion of the province’s politics are “how can we further restrict what is allowed to be done in one language while using the excuse of protecting another language as a way to drown out any opposition”, society is not fine.
-Commercial speech is not protected speech and is highly regulated in every democratic country.
-The right to work in French is the basis of why workplace language laws exist.
-Yeah actually, read your history. French schools were banned by those provinces at different times.
👍🏻
What a cop out. They regulate things like false advertising, not the words and the language you’re allowed to put on your signs. False equivalency.
That’s like saying “the right for white people to work is the basis of why segregation laws exist”. It’s absolutely unnecessary and a sorry excuse for trampling on people’s rights.
To be fair, I was thinking of more recent times, but fine, let’s go back 100 years. Manitoba had restrictions on teaching French, but that’s only an earlier part of the last hundred years. Regulation 17 in Ontario was repealed in 1927, so one of the last 100 years was affected. New Brunswick, on the contrary, even promoted french very strongly with a goal of becoming a bilingual province. So no, you can’t say that the last 100 years were generally worse for Francophones in Canada than the present is for anglophones in Quebec. And even if it were the case, what’s your point? “They suffered, so you have to suffer too”? What a pitiful argument. But it shows the hypocrisy fairly well: when it happens to Francophones in Canada: “bad, unacceptable repression”, when it happens to anglophones in Quebec: “necessary measures to protect the French language”. Give me a break.