On January 31, 2004, I wrote: “Anglo Quebec Loses Another Hero” in regards to Brent Tyler’s decision to step down as the leader of Alliance Quebec (please see archives).
I received quite a few comments concerning this editorial, all of which felt that Brent had already done far more than anyone could have ever expected of him, and that his departure will be another huge loss to the already devastated “Anglo” community.
Here is one of the letters I received.
By Ed Arzouian:
In an editorial today (Feb.2) The Gazette wrote, “(Brent) Tyler has been sharply criticized by some, but his general approach – to fight for Anglophones’ rights in the courts, rather than by way of rallies in the streets – made good sense”.
Talk about too little, too late!
The biggest critics of Tyler were the Gazette and its writers like Sue Montgomery and Don MacPherson, who never missed an opportunity to nail him and Alliance Quebec.
Now the Gazette tells us Brent and AQ were doing a good job all along!
Ahhh, just a little more hypocrisy from our White Elephant of la Rue St. Jacques, Ste-Catherine Street or wherever they now call home.
The Gazette could have taken a closer look at the mismanagement in Sheila Copps’ Heritage department and they might have understood where Mr. Tyler and AQ discontent came from.
It is not for nothing that Auditor General Sheila Fraser determined a few years ago that part of the responsibility of the Official Languages Act, under which AQ gets funded, be transferred to former Minister Stephane Dion’s Intergovernmental Affairs Ministry. Heritage was doing a crappy job.
But instead it was far easier for Montgomery, MacPherson and the Gazette to slam Tyler.
Do not for a moment think Alliance Quebec is no longer necessary. You need only read the comments of Josée Legault, again in The Gazette, of all places, to see that vigilance by English language activists is still a must.
Canadian Heritage would rather move the funds from militants like AQ to the lamb-lobby who want to maintain museums and put on English plays in the woods for communities that no longer exist.
All of that said – Ed is 100% right. But . . .
In his final analysis, Ed Arzouian leaves the impression that there is room for where the money to defend “Anglo” rights should not go. And that he believes there is still a need for English language activists.
But he also concluded with the words in reference to Quebec’s Anglo community “for communities that no longer exist”.
The Quebec “Anglo” and Ethnic communities have so damaged themselves by appeasement and acquiescence, that for their communities to once again prosper is beyond unlikely.
When the English community accepted to become invisible and surrender their place in Quebec’s history, they accepted the end of their community.
No Quebec Premier will ever do anything to challenge any part of Bill 101. As a matter of FACT, the only campaign promise Jean Charest seems to be keeping intact, was his pre-election pledge not to change one comma on Bill 101, Quebec’s racist language law.
Remarkably; his promise to continue to screw “Anglo” and Ethnic Quebec didn’t elicit even the mildest rebuke from the “Anglo/Ethnic” communities or the English press.
And in spite of this scurrilous pledge by Charest, he still won nearly the entire “Anglo” vote.
The Quebec minorities, especially the “Anglos” have become so accustomed to apologizing to the French majority for their past successes, that it is now “normal”.
To stand up against anti-English racism, is to be targeted as a hardliner, extremist and trouble-maker. Not necessarily by French Quebecers, but more likely by “Anglo” appeasers at all levels.
As much as I agree with what Ed Arzouian wrote; I feel the real conclusion is that Quebec’s “Anglo” community does not need a new fighter (activist).
What Quebec “Anglos” need is a seasoned surrenderer, of which there are no shortage of qualified and skilled candidates.