The poll on anglo attitudes

Re: “Poll result surprised L’actualité” (Opinion, March 29).

I have carefully read Jean-françois Lisée’s interpretation of my interpretation of his views on the purported opinions of Quebec anglophones as reflected in a recent CROP survey for L’actualité magazine.

He refutes my observation that he was engaging in an integration test for anglophones, by stressing that he neither mentioned nor alluded to that term. Yet I maintain that this notion underlies his analysis of the poll.

My conclusion is based among other things on the following passages that Lisée wrote in his poll analysis in L’actualité: “The massive refusal to consider themselves responsible for the preservation of the francophone element of Quebec society is indicative of the failure to meet a threshold of inter-linguistic solidarity, despite the group’s level of bilingualism.” Elsewhere he states that “we wanted to see if anglophones were in any way personally engaged in the fight to preserve the distinct society.”

Integration theory often speaks about such things as engagement, solidarity and thresholds that need to met. I’ll defer to Gazette readers and other Quebecers to judge whether my interpretation is sound.

Lisée suggests I should be fired as an interpreter of his writing. Rest assured, the job is of no interest. A little advice to prospective candidates: his interpretation of issues can at times be hard to follow. Take his March 22 blog for L’actualité where all he presumably asks of anglophone Quebecers is that they say Yes to such statements as “francophones should have the right to work in their language in large businesses.” In fact, the CROP survey question reads “in your opinion, should large Montreal corporations be allowed to hire unilingual anglophones as managers, even if this means that Frenchspeaking employees need to work in English?” Suggesting that the responses imply that anglophones reject the right of francophones to work in French is stretching things just a tad. Such things help us appreciate why some feel it essential to legislate things like “clarity.”

Jack Jedwab Executive Director Association for Canadian Studies

Jean-françois Lisée’s article portrays both a naïveté and a misunderstanding of the English community. For the most part, English-speaking people and allophones view language as a personal thing that should preserved at the individual level and not collectively.

Most people I know believe that people who want the French language to be preserved should take a page from the many communities that have come to our country (Chinese, Greek, Italian, etc.) and teach it to their children.

The problem with believing that preserving a language is the responsibility of the collectivity is that it can devolve easily into idolizing one language over the others. When Lisée asks whether French element is Montreal’s defining characteristic, he displays that kind of idolization.

Montreal’s defining characteristic is that everyone has played a part in its development, and the reality of Quebec is that it is a French-speaking province. Those who wish to adapt may do so; those who do not will not be able the thrive here, but the choice remains theirs. David Bamatter

Pointe Claire

I found Jean-françois Lisée’s article intellectually dishonest. I am not convinced that there were no political motives behind the article he co-authored.

Jack Jedwab hit the nail on the head in criticizing the methodology used by Lisée and his colleagues, and pointed out that the author has direct ties to a political party that is whipping up identity politics in preparation for the next election.

Is it all surprising that on Wednesday the Parti Québécois used Lisée’s article to criticize the Charest government?

Does this point to biased journalism? It does in my books. Kyle Matthews

Montreal

I’m glad that Jean-françois Lisée wrote to clarify his position on L’actualité’s poll, because his article points to a misunderstanding between some French- and English-speaking Quebecers that I hadn’t realized existed. Lisée is surprised that most anglophones disagree that French predominance is key to Montreal’s “soul” or that it is the “duty” of anglophones to ensure that French remains Quebec’s most important language.

I am astonished to learn that this is what’s expected of us. Is there a minority in the world that would accept as its duty the ensuring of its own second-place status? The mischief-making part of me wants The Gazette to commission a poll to find out how many francophones believe that English is remotely related to Montreal’s soul, or that it is their duty to ensure that English remains a language in Quebec. The reasonable part of me, though, wants no more polling whatsoever so that we can all get back to doing what we do when we’re not being poked with a linguistic stick: just living together and getting along. Michael Milech

Montreal West

Jean-françois Lisée says he has a way with words. It’s true, in a way. He and his fellow separatists get away with a lot of words. One-half of francophone adults are separatists, he says. Really? When was the word separatism ever mentioned in a poll, referendum or election? How many of Lisée’s fellow separatists understand that sovereignty or independence is outright separatism?

Another word he has his way with is “citizen.” In Lisée’s survey, those who live here are citizens of Quebec, as if Quebec were separate in all but name. But my citizenship (and his) is Canadian, thank you very much. And this “straightforward guy,” with his wayward use of words, wants us to handle the truth? Howard M. Greenfield

Montreal