Down with Frenglish

In your April 7 Letters section, a brave, anonymous reader sent a letter complaining - among other things - about Bill 101 and Alice and Yanka's Frenglish style of writing ["Fed up with Frenglish"]. As a francophone, I would agree that Frenglish shouldn't be promoted and is not very poetic prose, but for different reasons than Mr./Ms. Anonymous.

For your typical English-Canadian, to be able to switch from one language to another in one sentence probably looks amazing - this might explain the pathetic official speeches by the federal government or Governor General. For others, it just looks like lazy bilingualism or half-lingualism. But for many Québécois and francophones outside Quebec, Frenglish is the first symptom of language assimilation - especially if it's done unintentionally. That's why we're lucky in Quebec to have a law like Bill 101 to keep Montreal's famous French différence alive - unlike in other provinces - and to remind each other that this place is French. Je me souviens.

Also, protecting French in Montreal is the Québécois way to counter-balance American cultural-dumping. Federalists prefer to spend billions on red flags, while sovereigntists prefer efficient grammar. You pick your side during the next election.

As for Mr./Ms. Anonymous' respect-for-tourists' reasons to be against Frenglish, well it's just dumb for so many reasons. Firstly, that's the English-Canadian inferiority complex towards Americans talking. It's like being ashamed that you have a flaw. Everybody has flaws! Montreal still has a couple of "half-linguals"... so what?

Secondly, doesn't this person find it bourgeois to always be worried about what their neighbour thinks of them? Third, tourists are abroad, they expect to be disoriented by foreign customs and that's why they go on vacations. And lastly, take the French différence out of Montreal and you're left with any other boring city. Then the tourists won't even want to come in the first place.

» Simon Leclerc

Dating older women okay

I was much surprised to read Chris Barry's review of Guess Who ["Weekly round-up," March 24] and realize that it was also a critique of Ashton Kutcher's love life. Funny, older actors' love lives don't usually come into question, especially if they are dating younger women. Could we please get with the program that life is a two-way street, and if you're a man, you can choose to love someone older, dare I say wiser, than yourself? Perhaps Mr. Barry might give it a try and gain some insight and, dare I say, wisdom.

» Wanda Lazariuk

Let the bigots speak

To my absolute astonishment, I recently read a piece by a member of that notoriously blind group, "the public at large," by Kristian Gravenor, that demonstrated a clear sign of visibility ["Whitey on the Skids," April 7]. In his article, Gravenor points out that, for some preposterous reason, our all-knowing, prestigious Canadian government has taken the liberty upon itself to eradicate its fellow citizens from the ever impending doom of, wait for it... Holocaust revisionists? Astounding!

Under the influence of which brand of locally brewed alcoholic beverage did our "esteemed" elected officials deem it reasonable, let alone justifiable, to spend any effort whatsoever trying to incarcerate a handful of bigots? Not only is this a mockery to the political institution of Canada, but more importantly a threat to our rights as Canadian citizens to freedom of speech.

Mr. Ahenakew and Zundel have done nothing to any civilian in the slightest (except possibly themselves) by pronouncing their pathetic, outdated and historically inaccurate accounts of those godforsaken "social parasites," the Jews. If simply conforming to a political ideal that makes society as a whole feel "icky" constitutes a crime, then there are dark times ahead of us. For where is the folly of politically correct censorship to end? Perhaps government officials will find it necessary in the near future to protect the over-edgy public from other annoying deplorable articulators that make them grind their teeth at night, such as communist sympathizers, Michael Jackson apologists, and self-righteous university strikers.

Furthermore, one might stop a moment to reflect on the fact that while our government spends its precious time defending the public at large from the always-endangering freedom of speech, it in turn has shown a complete blind eye (with the full support of many leftist intellectuals, naïve adolescents and humanitarian organizations) to more socially hazardous issues. These include the vast array of illegal alien border jumpers that cripple the legitimacy of our immigration laws everyday, while creating more social peril than any Holocaust sympathizer ever could.

It is a sad day for all when many in contemporary society, most importantly the government of Canada, deem the latter action more appropriate than the obligatory defence of free speech - both controversial and non-. When it comes to issues concerning compassion, the Canadian government and public can pat themselves on the back. But when it comes to protecting freedom of speech, the two are paralyzed from the neck up.

» Jordan Frankel

WE WELCOME LETTERS TO THE EDITOR!

Send your comments, compliments or criticisms to:

Letters to the Editor,
c/o Montreal Mirror,
465 McGill, 3rd Floor
Montreal, Quebec
H2Y 4B4

You may also fax us at (514) 393-3173, or reach us by e-mail:

Letters to the Editor

All letters should include your name, address and daytime phone number.

If you wish to reach someone in particular, here's a list of people involved with the production of the newspaper and this site.