CJAD 800 Radio’s Aaron Rand interviewed Colin Standish on Monday’s show. You can listen to the interview by clicking the sound file above.



When I think of language in Quebec, I look no further than the village green in my Eastern Townships hometown of Cookshire.

There, a plaque refers with cultural ignorance to the Anglican church simply as “non-Catholic.” A sign commemorating the local heritage route, which follows the footsteps of Loyalist pioneers, displays “Chemin des Cantons” in lettering twice the size as “Townships Trail,” at once celebrating and denigrating the English-speaking heritage of the region.

My elementary school stands in the corner, where my young classmates and I would waltz into school past graffiti on the century-old bell tower that read, “Va chier les Anglais.” (Loosely translated: “You English go f–k yourselves.”)

English-speakers are not a privileged elite, but a socio-economically underprivileged minority. English-speakers earn less than francophones and have little access and control to economic and political levers, even proportionally below their declining share of the population.

Such is the sin of being born “anglais” in Quebec.

Quebecers must confront the myths that haunt us, if after the April 7 election we are to be allowed to have a genuine language debate.

Myth 1: Anglophones act as a united force

Diversity of opinion, political beliefs, origins and background characterize the community. Two camps have coalesced in their level of activism — those who are militant and assertive regarding language rights, characterized as “angryphones,” and those who prefer a more acquiescent or non-confrontational approach to getting things done, labelled the “lamb lobby.” Bill 14 highlighted the fractured voice of the community, as a variety of groups and individuals sought to protect or advance their own special interests, with little consensus or unity.

Myth 2: Anglophones are a privileged elite

That anglophones are a privileged elite and “the best-treated minority in the world” are toxic myths that jaundice language debates. Anglophones are defined by a declining population, an aging population, and what is described as a “missing middle” — people aged 15 to 44 who have, incidentally, lower levels of education, income and employment than other Quebecers.

English or bilingual institutions have been shuttered or replaced by new administrative structures. Virtual government monopolies exist in the domains of health care, education and social services; however, these services are often doled out in French only. And if we don’t like these services, we are stuck, because it is hard to buy them in the private sector — either because they don’t exist or are too expensive. Official-language minorities in the rest of Canada often benefit from expanded government services and legislation, while internationally, minorities in developed countries are rarely prevented or discouraged from self-expression and independent community development.

Myth 3: Unhappy anglophones can simply leave the province

On this, I am sure that I am not alone when I bristle with resentment over remembering the times when I was told, “If you don’t like the way things are in Quebec, you can leave.” As if I might be as comfortable in Kentucky as I am in Knowlton. René Lévesque once said, “Quebec is the one corner of the world that we can call home,” and this rings true to English-speaking Quebecers. However, it must be acknowledged that dislocation is the unfortunate path most English-speakers, more than 50 per cent of those born in Quebec, have chosen.

Myth 4: French-speakers are a marginalized majority-minority