Contrary to what Larose commission
spokesmen suggest, their work does not mark the end of linguistic wars, but
a new step in the nationalization of society. The 288-page report is predicated
on the premise that language is a collective, not an individual, choice. The
state is everywhere glorified, all problems require “state action,” and the
Bureaucracy (“l’Administration”) is written with a capital letter.
For the Gérald Larose estates-general,
everything is collective, political, “étatique.” The Québec society
is viewed as a living entity in the old-fashioned animist way: it has a will
and a soul (“l’âme québécoise”), “is able to face new challenges,” aims at
“affirming itself,” “persuades itself,” and even “wants to improve its [or
is it “her”?] knowledge of languages.” The commission, our collective mouthpiece,
uses a fascinating mix of politically correct jargon (“projet social et
collectif,” “citizen” used as an adjective, “pluriel,” etc.) and
statist pidgin of the 1960s (“vouloir-vivre collectif,” “l’État
du Québec,” “aménagement,” etc.).
Increased politicization
nurtures conflict because political decisions are forced on everybody. On
the contrary, free individual choices allow peace in diversity. The 16th-
and 17th-century religious wars could only be solved by finally
letting each individual choose his own religion. Similarly today, the only
way to defuse linguistic wars is to leave every individual free to speak the
language, or languages, he wants – provided, of course, he finds somebody
who is willing to listen.
The more the lives of individuals
are ruled by political decisions, the more violence you introduce in society.
When this politicization of life does not lead to open violence, it is simply
because oppressed minorities yield to the threat of force. Laws are ultimately
guaranteed by armed me. If you don’t comply with language laws, you are fined.
If you don’t pay the fine, the state will seize your assets. If you resist
the seizure, other men will come with other things than flowers in their holsters.
If you resist them, they will, if you are lucky, put you in jail. Integrate,
or else! Of course, this is not a monopoly of the Québec government: as the
Larose commission notes, the federal bilingualism law is sanctioned by a two-year
jail penalty.
We are blind to this violence
because we live under what appears to be a Nice State, a bit like in George
Lucas’ film THX 1138, or like in the village of Patrick McGoohan’s
The Prisoner. Propaganda is crucial, for example in debasing the concept
of rights. The proposal to include in the so-called “Charter of rights” the
right of some people to impose their language on others is quite significant
in this respect.
Faithful to the Nice State,
the Larose Commission had its two token anglophones. We can imagine the dynamics
of the commission in the following stylized way. Do we represent the collective
will? Yes, we do! Do we have to decide which languages can be used in different
contexts? Yes, we do! Do we have any objection to new bureaucratic jobs being
created to respond to whatever recommendations might come out of our democratic
deliberations? No, we don’t! (please, repeat). “Okay, gentlemen,” said Larose,
“now, let’s get to work on this mandate.” The two naïve anglophones were,
of course, gobbled up and eaten alive immediately.
After such a great success,
Gérald Larose was quoted by Le Devoir as saying that “We have less
problems with the Anglophone community here than with anglo-americanism.”
You see how we are nice when you behave yourself.
But what did he mean by
“anglo-americanism”? To try and understand, we have go to the conclusion of
the report, which conveniently escaped translation (you see how language protectionism
is useful to the state?). After proclaiming that the old French-English antagonism
in Québec has “diminished a bit if not a lot,” even if “some individuals and
groups are trying to keep it alive,” the report adds: “Because of this factor
among others, the Québec State should never lower its defence nor stop using
the law. The new antagonism, the one fed by noisy and invasive anglo-americanism,
raises new challenges that call for new answers.”
What does this last, cryptic
sentence mean? One hypothesis is that the writers of the report are referring
to the growing libertarian dissent against statism everywhere in the world.
Since the commissioners do not understand that language problems can be solved
by decentralized individual choices, they are naturally tempted to blame some
obscure conspiracy. This wouldn’t be the first attempt to raise cultural barriers
and enflame nationalist wrath against ideas deemed dangerous to the state.
The report’s recommendation
to better enforce the use of French on websites of businesses established
in Québec, wherever their servers and customers are, will continue to drive
entrepreneurs away. The Larose types do not care about an inhospitable climate
for enterprising businesses, because it will only give them, through the state,
more power and more money. This, however, will create economic difficulties,
increase social discontent, and breed more politicization and confrontation.
The Commission
wants “the availability of the French versions of software to be mandatory
for technical instruction in French-language CEGEPs.” Interestingly, the Larose report was converted into a pdf file with an
English version of Adobe Acrobat, as can be verified in the file properties
on the Web.[1] The Committee’s secretary further admitted
that the report was laid out with an English version of QuarkXPress. Obviously,
there must be very good economic reasons to use English software if even the
language crusaders or their minions do it.
English community spokesmen
are mistaken to put so much emphasis on their legislated right to medical
and social services in English. For the standardization of language or citizenship
belongs to the same logic as the standardization of social and medical services
through nationalization. The obligation (which is called a “right,” in typical
Newspeak) of the Anglophones to know French is, says the report, “a question
of social justice.”
In the statist agenda, everything
fits together. If the state can prohibit you from admitting your smoking customers
in your shop, it can also decide in which language you will post on the walls
or on outdoor signs; and vice-versa. What the state has done was to nationalize
space in private businesses, and language was one of the first steps. We should
have stopped it much sooner. Let’s reclaim our liberties now.
1.
Larose report as
downloaded on August 22, 2001.
