Its laws around displaying products accurately to the population, ie. must be in a sufficient amount of french so the majority of the Population can read it.

Give me a break. They’re being displayed accurately even if they’re in another language. And if, for instance, you have something in english in Montreal, or especially in one of the predominantly English boroughs in Montreal, then the majority of the population can read it. The majority of the population also very definitely knows what pasta refers to.

English is permitted in the workplace. Workplaces under certain # are fully exempt and workplaces needing english/or other foreign languages have broad exceptions.

Hmm, if certain workplaces are exempt, maybe it’s not as simple as “English is permitted in the workspace”? Or maybe that statement is even flat out false?

Try maintaining a job at companies in Toronto refusing to speak any english and see if you can argue a human rights abuse case for your subsequent dismissal.

Again, false equivalency. We’re talking about forcing workplaces to be in a certain language, not refusing to speak the language of a workplace.

Both Ontario and New Brunswick’s school systems are systematically underfunded

Lol, I’ve seen the EMSB. Don’t even get me started.

Find me a more protected minority group in the Western World.

The problem is: you talk your way around, find excuses for and misrepresent the transgressions against anglophones. You excuse restrictions on free expression with things like “there’s a handbook to avoid writing the wrong thing”, you try to indirectly excuse abuses against anglophones with “look how bad Francophones have it elsewhere”, and you do mental gymnastics to explain how forbidding languages is somehow an anti-exclusionary practice, it’s absurd. At this point, there’s no point comparing since you don’t even accept what is happening with anglophones for what it is.

Good god, it reminds me of arguing with fascists.