What Living In Quebec and Orwell's 1984 Have In Common
(Source: photo retrieved from cbc.ca)
London, September 18th, 2014
It was the morning of the Scottish Referendum. And like a mini United Nations, my colleagues and I gathered for a discussion around our desks.
I listened passively to the usual arguments for why Scotland shouldn’t leave the UK. The value of the Great British Pound would plummet. Scotland would be left without a military.
It all sounded so familiar.
And when the group turned to me for the “Canadian perspective”, they were shocked to find out why.
Separatist issues had long been prevalent in my life. I was born in Montreal to English speaking parents, and the politics between English and French parties had been a broken record for as long as I could remember.
In a dynamic similar to that of Scotland and the UK, Quebec had come close to separating from Canada twice before. The last referendum, in 1995, was defeated by a margin of only 1% (fewer than 55,000 votes). And since the ‘70s (when Quebec’s separatist party, Le Parti Québécois, first gained momentum), hundreds of thousands of English Quebecers have relocated to other provinces.
I recall my uncle telling me as a teenager that Montreal’s mass exodus was the best thing that ever happened to Toronto. The influx of talented, hard working individuals sent the city soaring, and today it continues to exceed Montreal in terms of immigration and economic opportunity.
Hell, even the headquarters of Bank of Montreal moved to Toronto.
My colleagues were incredulous. But I was just getting started.
Next, I told them about Quebec’s “language police”.
In 1977, Quebec implemented Bill 101. A series of laws intended to “allow francophone Quebecers to live and assert themselves in French.”
The government’s goal was to prevent English from overriding French as the primary language in Quebec (an ongoing concern given Quebec is bordered by English speaking provinces and the US).
However, Bill 101’s oppression of English has been met with loud opposition since it’s birth.
And rightfully so.
(Source: photo retrieved from cbc.ca)
Bill 101 denies Quebecers several freedoms. For instance:
1) Quebec residents cannot attend public English schools unless:
a) the individual in question can prove a parent or relative set a precedent by attending English school themselves—either in Quebec or within Canada (under specific circumstances); or
b) they can afford private school.
Otherwise, Quebec residents are legally required to enrol in French schools.
Friends of my parents, who relocated to Quebec from England for the husband’s job, experienced the brunt of this when they were forced to enrol their three children in French school (despite them having no foundation in the language). Their middle child struggled the most, and it was only upon having a specialist diagnose the child with a learning disability, and filing an appeal to send her to English school, that they were able to bypass the law.
2) Quebec residents cannot post commercial signs or advertise their businesses in English unless the French equivalent is significantly larger (typically twice the size).
CTV, Montreal’s English news station, regularly features small business owners who’ve been hit with hefty fines for non-compliance (even in cases where the business in question has already resolved a false claim of infraction). Not to mention, several businesses ranging from a salad bar in an English neighbourhood, to an iconic Irish Pub, have been penalized for displaying vintage English signs. And despite winning their appeals that their signs represent cultural value, they had to undergo arduous processes that detracted from time spent on their businesses. Which is a regular occurrence for many business owners, particularly in Montreal.
—The National Post
3) Quebec businesses of 50 or more employees cannot operate predominantly in English (there are certain exceptions for head offices and research centres).
I distinctly remember the shock of having colleagues in France complain to me about the French language laws in Quebec. I was working at the Paris headquarters of a global company and was baffled to learn that while global communications were sent exclusively in English, they had to make exceptions for the Quebec teams, who required French translations to accompany English text. My colleagues in France found this absurd.
My London colleagues had reached peak shock. And when one of them finally spoke, he said, “I’m from India and we have these issues and debates all the time, but I thought it was only a problem in developing countries. I’m shocked it’s an issue in Canada.”
Another chimed in saying how in the US, people joke about how Canadians are “so nice” and always saying “sorry” for everything. And how contrary this information was to that image.
But the real kicker was my friend, Danny, saying the “language police” made him think of the “thought police” in George Orwell’s 1984.
I’d never made the connection.
And what’s more disturbing, is the eerie coincidence in language doesn’t stop there. Quebec’s Bill 101 is reminiscent of Room 101 in 1984—which Orwell depicts as a torture chamber for those who defy oppressive laws.
Room 101 is portrayed as a means to an end. In the same way Quebec’s Bill 101 is.
But what end is that?
The preservation of French? Or the lack of freedom for citizens to access and operate in their language of choice? Namely English, which is insane given it prevails as the common denominator transcending international borders.
The takeaway from 1984 is the danger of complying to mass control and oppression. And as I think about the situation in Quebec from that perspective, I have a deeper appreciation of Orwell’s “warning for the human race”.
There’s still a lot of resentment for Scotland’s lack of independence, following the vote to remain in the UK. But their residents are still better off than Quebecers. Because while Quebec arguably wields more power by imposing oppressive language laws, residents of Scotland are free to access and operate in their language of choice. Which comes full circle on Orwell’s claim that “power is not a means; it is an end.”
The publication of this article coincides with an organized debate around Bill 96 (the long-awaited reform of Bill 101), taking place from September 21st to October 7th, 2021.
—CTV News
