By Tracy N.

Since the introduction of Bill 101, the Quebec government, Separatist and Liberal alike, has offered a variety of reasons to justify their discriminatory laws and censorship.

For the most part, their justifications are illogical, simplistic, and not very well thought out. And that’s just what happens when you try to explain something without admitting to the original intentions. The simple fact is, all of the laws created to "protect the French language" were created for no reason other than a drive for linguistic superiority.

"All Québec consumers have a right to be informed and served in French."

While it is agreed that all essential services and government information must be provided in at least all official languages, and that smart businesses should provide services in the language of their clients, the right to be served in one’s native tongue simply does not exist, at least not in any capitalist society. The only place this right exists is in Bill 101, but we all know that you can’t use the what you’re trying to defend to defend your ideas.

On that note, it is only logical that a business serve its customers in whatever language is commonplace, be it official or not. If a business refuses to serve one in his/her own language, then the customer has the choice to leave, and seek the product or service elsewhere.

But it’s a different story when a business cannot serve you in your own language because he is prohibited by law. And that’s what the language charter, Bill 101, does.

Anglophones in Quebec are denied services in English. A civil servant must obtain permission from his/her superior before being allowed to address anyone in English. Prior to 1986, consumers could not obtain commercial information on signs outside of businesses in English. Even a simple sign like "Welcome" was prohibited.

Now, Anglophones may obtain some information through signs in their language, but only if the French lettering is twice as big, or there are twice as many signs. In short, an English speaking person has to look twice as hard for information.

So if a French person living in a bilingual country has the "right" to obtain services in his or her own language, then why doesn’t an English speaking person have the same right?

Surely, the government can’t be implying that one group has more rights than another….or are they?

"The French language is in danger of dying out"

80% of the Quebec population declares French as their mother tongue, and the majority of non-Francophones are fluently bilingual.

Granted, Quebec is surrounded by English speaking countries and provinces. The United States is overwhelmingly English, and the majority of the rest Canada declares English as their mother tongue.

However, despite the fact that French is a minority in all other 9 provinces, and that only 25% of the entire country’s population speaks French, the Canadian government still spends million of dollars every year promoting bilingualism. There are more French speaking schools in the province of Ontario than there are English speaking schools in the province of Quebec. All other provinces maintain their bilingual status, even though their French population percentage is lower than the English population percentage in Quebec. In short, all other provinces treat their population fairly. If there’s anything that makes Quebec distinct from the others, it’s that they don’t.

"Since the majority of the population is French, its only right that services be rendered in French."

Let’s forget the fact that this statement contradicts the previous one (contracting oneself is something the Quebec government is good at).

Put simply, I agree. Businesses should serve their customers in whatever language is spoken.

However, defenders of Bill 101 forget that businesses should also have the right to run their businesses as they see fit. There is no need to legislate common sense, and there is certainly no need to forbid minorities from being served in their language.

If a business decides to post a sign in Tagalog, that’s fine! I won’t understand it, and if I can’t find one I can understand, I will leave. But are my rights being trampled on because a Tagalog speaking customer is being served in his/her language? Certainly not! If anything, providing services in multiple languages will only help the business AND consumers.

So in light of these arguments presented by both the Quebec government and defenders of the French Language Charter, it isn’t hard to speculate about the true intentions of the originators of these unfair laws.

And regardless of the validity and truth of any argument, limiting the freedoms and basic constitutional rights of a people is never desirable. Freedom of expression must continue to be guaranteed. Otherwise, why bother calling oneself a free and democratic society?