Reaction to Adidas incident was bizarre
Canadian academia could be experiencing a watershed moment in free speech but, for Quebec, unresolved issues remain, making expression rights contingent on the language spoken.
Proponents of Quebec language policing choose to frame their enthusiasm for suppressing the use of minority languages in public as a progressive initiative, conceived to improve the vitality of French.
More than 40 years after the introduction of Bill 101, the Quebec government has yet to present conclusive evidence supporting the efficacy of the way in which the Office québécois de la langue française polices speech.
Support for free speech includes accepting that these language hawks have the right to continue advancing unsubstantiated theories.
Still, the outdated OQLF enforcement model sets the tone for some absurd, aggressive discourse in Quebec, just as intellectuals in the rest of Canada are debating the more complex problem of free speech online, and what content merits study.
It’s encouraging to see the case of Wilfrid Laurier University teaching assistant Lindsay Shepherd spark debate on what constitutes healthy discussion in Canadian universities. Consensus among liberal-minded academics and intellectuals seems to be generally supportive of Shepherd, who was briefly disciplined for exposing her Critical Thinking class to some problematic social commentary.
These discussions on civility, though at times pedantic, are ultimately productive. And they will prove useful in the future, as increasingly influential social media platforms boost the visibility of fringe views.
Meanwhile in Quebec, nationalist leaders in media and politics — unlike the generally anglo-friendly citizenry — are hung up on the language used to present any idea in public, no matter how inconsequential. Much of the chattering class can be easily distracted from more important public policy matters by someone in the Montreal retail sector speaking too many English words.
I’ll spare readers exhaustive details about what is a trivial incident but, in sum, a francophone shoe salesman committed a public relations error by failing to prioritize French at an Adidas store launch last week. His employer apologized three days later.
Social media backlash following any perceived public misstep is a risk associated with modern life. For this misstep to warrant coverage in all major news outlets, leading to official debate in the National Assembly and condemnation of the salesman from opposition leaders and the premier is bizarre. This projects profound insecurity to the world.
“Tens” of Montrealers present were offended, the Journal de Montréal reported, along with a few celebrities. The newspaper’s sovereignist opinion writers later extrapolated the incident was evidence of the anglo “colonization” of Quebec and that “Quebec francophones are increasingly perceived as archaic and aggressive agitators, especially if they don’t accept their fate as tamed minorities” (a “minority” of 78.4 per cent of Quebecers are francophone).
If unilingual English statements were made by a public official, perhaps some concern over the vitality of French could be warranted. The disproportionate importance placed on this incident crossed the line from civil political discourse to the ad hominem mobbing of an unsuspecting civilian.
Canadian courts are compelled to bend the notion of free speech to give Quebec governments leeway to maintain private-sector language policing. Culture hawks in media and politics, however, are still free to exercise restraint and decline to expand the concept to include shaming private citizens. That many nevertheless go on the attack suggests there is no cure for the quotidian malaise felt by some members of the nationalist intelligentsia when different languages are spoken.
Much of Quebec’s political class seems ill-prepared to tackle consequential policy debates, or to hear a Shepherd-type of institutional whistleblower, when policing the words of sneaker salesmen is a priority.
Before tackling the problem of diversity of opinion, accepting the reality of actual diversity — including the seemingly inconvenient presence of other languages in public life — must be a political reflex.