2010-11-10

Logical Fallacy Gone Awry

More proof legislators simply don't think. They think they do, but only within the narrative they set and the prism in which they operate.

Heard NDP politician for the swank Outremont district Thomas Mulcair utter an anectodal gibber-whopper this morning on the Tommy Schnuuuuuuurmacher show which I paraphrase:

"I was talking to my neighbour who is from Bangladesh in English. He son came out and I switched to French and we spoke in French. He spoke of his daughters each of whom speak French and became engineers and one was hired by RIM because she spoke perfect French thanks to Bill 101!"

Startling really.

First off, "we all know" no one speaks "perfect" French in Quebec anymore given the frightening declining state of French in Quebec. Ironic given how much protection it receives.

Alas, it's not about the preservation and enhancement of a beautiful language, it's all about protecting it in a political manner.

Second, I don't know where to begin with this trivial tripe. Implicit in the statement is that Bill 101 in fact helps people become bilingual or even trilingual? So how does that explain those of us excluded from this draconian law are actually more likely to be trilingual than those kept hostage by it? Right there, the fact that Italians, Greeks, Portuguese, Chinese are all, for the most part, trinligual communities who do not face Bill 101 makes a mockery of his assertion.

I submit it's a cultural thing and less thanks to a law. People recognize the foolishness of political legislation and just work around it. If some Quebec parents want their kids in English school at an earlier age, that's their right to make that decision. Not a government one. What. Is. So. Complicated?

It made no sense for Mulcair to defend a law that explicitly restricts choice. His claim is that it only restricts access at the elementary level after that you're free as a bird. What if a parent wants it to be the opposite? That is, send them to elementary school in English because, say, the school is nearby and easier for them and then send them to high school in French? What if an American is transfered here for work but finds himself forced to send his nine year-old kid to school in French? How does that serve anyone?

Half of freedom is no freedom at all. Alas, this is Quebec where freedom of choice at the personal level is a far out, abstract concept.

If he wants to delude himself with strawman fallacies about its successes that's his business, just don't dare try and tell us it's a smart, practical law thanks to an anectodal conversation.

4 comments:

  1. Anonymous11/10/2010

    I heard Mulcair this morning and the thing which I retained, which I'd never really considered, is the fact that these immigrants are choosing to come to Quebec. The speaking French part and the fact that it's a jurisdiction which protects its language are issues on which an informed choice can be made.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is true. Informed decisions can be made but I wonder if in some cases they under estimate just how "rigid" it can be.

    However, what about those who have to come for work and don't have a choice?

    The bottom line is Bill 101 may 'work" in protecting the language but it still discriminates against native Quebecers.

    The calculation is made so that culture prevails over the individual. My argument is, fair enough but don't dress it up as democratic or a model of compromise.

    I did find point about the workers in Rimouski interesting but I think had more to do with an ignorant company failing to understand the market it operates in.

    I didn't have an issue with that since it was a different situation.

    I had a problem with the notion that Bill 101 does what he claims is absurd and should be rejected outright.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous11/10/2010

    When one is looking for work, it's normal to weigh the pros and cons of all the options available.
    I would think that it could be argued that a goodly number of people choose to work and raise families in Quebec precisely because of the linguistic and cultural reasons.
    Bill 101 discriminates much more towards the native francophone Quebecer than the anglo. I've lived in Quebec almost all my life and I don't remember ever hearing a francophone up in arms about how they can't get English schooling for their child. Even if some have, they don't complain in significant enough numbers to ever be taken seriously. I'd be curious to know why they(francophones)are not more displeased, but I think that the only opposition to 101 which could ever gain any traction would have to be led by the French speaking majority, with the anglos backing their play.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Again, much of what you say is true but permit me to add a thought.

    Indeed, it discriminates against French Quebecers and not anglos - I wonder how much, if any, the St. Leonard riots factored into that.

    And indeed, not enough of them seem to care. However, when they do - as we saw with a recent case - the government mobilizes to close down loopholes as they did with Bill 104 or whatever they call it.

    The signal being, take us on and we'll still knock you out.

    No matter how you cut it, and I take a position that goes beyond Quebec and firmly considers freedom of choice, it's a tryannical law legislated by a parochial society.

    Normally, I don't accept anon's but I'm making an exception here since there's a civil tone to this discussion! Thank you.

    ReplyDelete

Mysterious and anonymous comments as well as those laced with cyanide and ad hominen attacks will be deleted. Thank you for your attention, chumps.