Canadian Language Education Questions

[Berkut]

If you lived in a nation that has experienced true foreign oppression in its history like Quebec, you would understand.

Yes, yes, the British Empire has always been a benevolent force in history, never raising its sword against a defenless nation, always acting in the preservation of good, social order, always defending the widow and the orphan
I still wonder why Americans chose to leave such a beautiful empire and wage such a bloody war.   They must have been stupid, or something.

I know, this is what I've been trying to tell Marty. He lives in a nation that has never experienced the lash of English oppression, so he just cannot understand your historical pain.

[viper37]

I know, this is what I've been trying to tell Marty. He lives in a nation that has never experienced the lash of English oppression, so he just cannot understand your historical pain.

coming from someone you constantly bitched when another language than english was used on a forum, that is extremely funny

Maybe you should try reading a book, or something, about Canadian politics and history.  It would certainly help if you knew what you were talking about.

It seems to me that, from your point of view, english canada's discrimination against french speakers, wether overt in the past, via laws, or present, with various means of sidestepping the courts judgement is perfectly acceptable.  But the french speakers restricting access to english education for immigrant is simply... naziesque.

Ah, the great Berkut of old   With a sense of moderation without parallels

[garbon]

I still never understand how you support discriminatory policies in the present in support of French by noting historical backwards discrimination in the past. "Well they were bigots back then so we get to be bigots now!"

[Berkut]

From my point of view, modern people like yourself crying because their language isn't special enough to everyone is just comical and silly. The idea that Canada is opressing you is just hilarious.

You can keep on trying to make this about me, with references to things you've made up that you claim happened, what, a decade ago? but it just makes you look that much more desperate and out of touch. It's not like I have a dog in this race - my opinion is completely motivated by you and grallons arguments - you've made me go from completely ambivalent to adamantly opposed to your position.

The best part is just how incapable you are of seeing how silly the entire thing is to nearly everyone else. You are lecturing a Pole about oppression and cultural domination by outsiders? Do you have even an inkling of how ridiculous that is?

[viper37]

I still never understand how you support discriminatory policies in the present in support of French by noting historical backwards discrimination in the past. "Well they were bigots back then so we get to be bigots now!"

It's not just historical.  Most french schools outside of Quebec are attached to an English school board and get inadequate funding.
Use Google translate for this one:
Link
I've talked about it in the Canadian politics thread.
The core issue is the quality of French education in British Columbia.  To bully the group into submission, the BC government has asked that all documents be translated in english, basing its argument on a 1731 law making English the official language of the province for trials.  The Supreme Court has judged it still applies.  Despite apparent contradictions with Federal laws.

If Quebec tried a stunt like that with its English community, the Federal parliament would get medieval on our collective asses.

This being an example among many.  In Alberta and Manitoba, despite a sizable franco minority still trying to survive, the Supreme Court has refused to force them to translate laws and reaffirm the precedence of english in laws.  If a law or rule is badly translated, english version prevails.

Again, I can't imagine what the reaction would be if Quebec tried that.  Simply stating the French is the official language of the province got us a lot of flack.  Can't imagine actually depriving Anglo-Québécois of their real rights.

About the rights Berkut insist I am inventing

http://www.officiallanguages.gc.ca/en/publications/annual_reports/2012-2013Annual report of the Commissionner of official languages[/Url]
Wich will be quickly dismissed by many of our canadian friends as the rantings of a bureaucrat.

About the french bashing in Canadian medias:

Graham Fraser, an English Canadian journalist noted for his sympathy for Quebec, has tempered both sides. "This phenomenon (of English Canadian Francophobia) exists, I do not doubt it; I have read enough of Alberta Report to know that there are people that think bilingualism is a conspiracy against English Canadians to guarantee jobs for Quebecers — who are all bilingual, anyway.", he wrote. "I have heard enough call-in radio shows to know that these sentiments of fear and rage are not confined to the Canadian west. But I do not think these anti-francophone prejudices dominate the Canadian culture."[115] Fraser, in fact, was himself named as Canada's new Official Languages Commissioner in September 2006.

And the Wikipedia article:
Anti Quebec sentiment

I can't do anything to stop English Canadians and some Americans of constantly whining about Quebec while totally ignoring/disregarding the facts in front of them, but I'd like to make sure this doesn't happen again in Quebec.

Given the total lack of effectriveness from the Federal government to prevent abuse of the French communities outside Quebec while rushing to the aide of Anglo-Québécois as soon as a government bureaucrat salutes them in *grasp* French (the horror), this is why I think, culturally, decentralization is better. 

English Canadian provinces will still be free to discriminate as they please against French Canadians and pretend bilinguism is the worst of all evils that can be imposed on men.  Meanwhile, Quebec will be free to promote the use of French, entirely select its immigrants&refugees.

Even without considering culture, it's much better to have has few levels of decision possible and have them closer to the situation.  Even the provincial government should be more decentralized towards MRCs, but I don't see that happening until we get more autonomy from the Feds.

Take the whole indian questions for example.  We can negotiate all we want, but all we can give them is a share of the natural resources extracted on their claimed ancestral territory.  Everything else depends on the Federal government wich adopts a one size fits all policy.  Assimilation has not worked very well, it simply made them even more dependant on Federal government aid, while at the same time destroying their identity and create a lot of the problems we see today.  Then you get a silly situation like the Hurons of Wendake, square in the middle of Quebec city now, wich rely on the Federal government for everything while the provincial center is just beside them and of easier access.

Environment, I've already dealt with that.

Criminal code.  Take the infamous and inefficient gun registry.  It's something the western part of the country opposed dearly, while the eastern part approved.  Had all provinces had their own criminal code (similar to US States, where each States has its own code plus the Federal laws) or a veto right, than either the provinces willing to adop their own registry and cooperate for exchange of info, or, the Feds create their registry and the provinces unwilling to have such an
innefficient and overly broad tool opt out of the program and get financial compensation.

Telecommunications is now solely under federal hands, because the Constitution has a provision that anything not explicitely listed as belonging to the provinces will be left to the Federal parliament to decide.  I'll die of old age before I see the House of Commons deleguating powers willingly and entirely to the provinces.  A Quebec's equivalent of the FTC would not be so pricky about the use of the word 'fuck' in a French radio station, because it's not really considered swearing like in the english part of the country, and besides, we are much less puritan than others.

Gay marriage.  Marriage is solely for the Feds.  Provinces like Quebec had to circumvent it by inventing "civil unions" wich was totally silly.  It took them their sweet time, but eventually they got there, giving gays the same rights.  Still, lots of bitching coming from some part of Alberta.  Just like abortion, a debate many MPs of the Fed gov will try to bring back to the forescene, any way they can.   If this was left to the provinces, 8-9 out of 10 would grant abortion and gay marriage and there would never be the fear that, by a freak accident, the Federal government is again able to pass laws based on some religious morale rather than scientific facts and common sense.

Something like the Federal policy of subsidizing the tar sand production could be better handled by the provinces themselves if they perceived a bigger share of their taxes.  Alberta could subsidize oil, Ontario could subsidize the auto industry and Quebec could subsidize bad singers and gay movie producers, I guess.
Doesn't matter if I approve of the policies or not myself, I still think it's something better left to the provinces themselves, rather than forcing everyone in the country to chime in and pay for each other national industry.

Maybe that way, some provinces wouldn't be as poor, receive less/pay less equalization payment, without sacrificing our quality of life.


But many Canadians seem to have an insane fear that decentralization = destruction and then America will pick up the pieces. I guess it's been going on since 1867.  The "lessons of the US civil war" were a great incentive for a centralized state, at the time.  A semi compromise was reached, wich gave us this mess, and didn't prevent provinces from restricting access to French education or declaring themselves unilingual english.  So fuck it for the protection of the Feds, it has done us no good so far.  Bilinguism is a real joke in this country and should be simply abandonned, it'd be less hypocritical than the current situation.  I mean, if you're going to invoke a 1731 laws to weasle yourself out of commiting the costs necessary to the translation (when the issue at hand is under financing of the french schools) something a government can afford to spend to rather than a committee of parents, I don't see the point at prentending we're bilinguals.

[viper37]

You can keep on trying to make this about me, with references to things you've made up that you claim happened, what, a decade ago? but it just makes you look that much more desperate and out of touch. It's not like I have a dog in this race - my opinion is completely motivated by you and grallons arguments - you've made me go from completely ambivalent to adamantly opposed to your position.

Look, what can I tell you?  You see fairies, I tell you they don't exist, you still see them.  You can't be arsed to read about it yourself, you don't believe facts when you see them, they are all propaganda to you.  It's like arguing with an intelligent design supporter, no matter what you tell him, he as the Faith, and that's all that counts. 

Really, I'm wondering what you're trying to achieve here, other than trolling?  You say I invent rights that are clearly in our Constitution, wich you never bother to read.  You say french bashing does not exist, yet it is a fact often demonstrated.  You say discrimination against French speakser has never existed, despite the historical evidence wich would take you a few minutes to read on Wikipedia, if you're too lazy to buy a book on Canadian history.

You probably still can't name my Prime Minister, and you used to think that Quebec was part of France.
What can I say?  This is a deaf dialogue, and you're just trolling like you used to on EUOT, back in the old days when you where whining about everything and the injustice of the American people so misunderstood by the Evil Europeans.

You know what?  I used to think you were a racist fuck, but I think you're just a moron unable to comprehend what he reads and depends on other to feed him the info, pre-digested.  I guess you must be a huge fan of Fox News and other networks of the sort, for special people just like you

[Berkut]

Rage much?

[Berkut]

Marty can't understand oppression and Berkut us a racist Fox News fan. Glad we've cleared that up.

[Zoupa]

Indeed. Which is why I find the entire thing kind of amusing. The idea that people living in Canada are oppressed is just...funny. I mean...it is fucking Canada. Is there a less oppressive nation in the history of mankind than Canada?

How about educating yourself instead of going "lol cut it out you guyz, it's Canada! My preconceived ideas backed by absolutely nothing but my gut feeling tells me this is BS!"

[Martinus]

If your boss told you that from now on, everyone speaks English and Polish is forbidden, you would submit and smile?
I wouldn't, for sure.

No, I specifically said that would be wrong (in the part that you did not deign to quote).

It should not be able for force english at work.  Having english necessary to communicate with clients, suppliers or another branch is a totally different matter than having the entire work environment in another language, especially when it's necessity is not really demonstrated.

I always require bilinguism of my office employees, but that's a totally different thing than forcing them to work in english.

Again, it depends on what you mean by "force". You should not be able to require "watercooler" talk to be done in English. And if two people are talking business (and this is not done at a larger meeting etc. and the conversation is not recorded etc. for whatever purposes) then you shouldn't be able to require them to speak a specific language if they choose not to. But I don't have a problem that, for example, with requiring that official written communication or larger meetings within the firm are done in a language that the firm prefers.

Does Poland finance public education in Russian and Ukrainian?

Sorry, the way you express yourself, I am sometimes not sure what you are saying. I thought the point you were making was that you were fine with Quebec providing English language education to people who come from English speaking countries, but should refuse to provide English language education to people who come from non-English speaking countries (in which case it is either French or bust). If that is not what you were arguing, then I obviously do not think the state should be required to provide education in Suahili, or Indian or whatever. But for the record Poland for example does provide free public education in Roma language, among other things, so this is not so outlandish.

I see a problem with it just as I see a problem with a topless women on an advertising near an elementary school.
It is improper and it destroys a particular cachet, that is all.

Again, a completely wrong (and, frankly, offensive) comparison. By the way, the way you (or grallon) introduce those French words to English communication makes you look tres pretentieux.

Being French is a distinctive advantage in North America, it we look all the same as Ottawa or Toronto, there's really no reason for tourists to visit.

That would be possibly justified in tourist areas (such as Old Town or whatever Montreal has) but arguing that entire Quebec should subscribe to crazy language restrictions as if it was one big tourist park is quite silly (not to mention, I begin to see why you are losing people - are you also requiring all locals to wear berets, smoke long cigarettes and talk about Sartre in public?)

English isn't really a threat to Poland.  What is the probability that a part of your country will be solely english speaking within 2-3 generations?

I can see this happening. But so what? That's how cultural exchange works. To be honest I don't even understand the concept of a language being a "threat". A "threat" to what? Our precious bodily fluids? 

And taking "your business elsewhere" wasn't really an option when these laws voted.  Even later, even today, you just won't see English Canada letting a Quebec based company take over their big corporations.  Canadian Pacific and the Toronto Stock Exchange are good examples of that.  With a little help from the Feds, they were able to successfully resist these take overs.  Nowadays, both corporations are owned by foreigners instead of Canadians, but at least, they don't speak french.

So, major corporations are based in Ontario, Toronto area.  Not the most french friendly place in the country.
Can't exactly retaliate against the Canadians the same way, the Feds will be all over us in a minute.

So what's left?  The ugly reality of having a government forced to define basic rights.  It's stupid, be we are there.  And with the help of these laws, and the development of a financial sector based in Quebec, we were able to create our own "Quebec inc".

As it is now, it's still easier for a Quebec based corporations to expand in the US than in Canada.

Ok, these are quite serious accusations and if true, would be a big problem with equal protection under law. Could other Canadians (especially lawyers) chime in, please, to let me know if this is really the case, and federal regulators are discriminating against Quebec companies?

Check past employment offers from Paradox.  Knowledge of Swedish is required.  Not because they are totally closed to the outside world, but just because that is their work environment.  They are a sovereign nation, they can do whatever they want.

That's their right (although, if I were a shareholder I would be concerned that by shutting out all non-Swedish-speaking programmers, they are excluding a significant part of the market from their supply; also, seeing how some of the event text in CK2 or EU4 is written, perhaps hiring more people with knowledge of English would be good). But not sure what this has to do with being a "sovereign nation" (I didn't know Paradox is controlled by the Swedish crown). If they wanted, they could require all employees to speak Mandarin - whether it would be a sound business decision or not is another matter.

Your country, your choice.  My country, my choice.

So your response to my points is that you can do/say whatever you like, because you say so? Remind me why we are even having this discussion again? 

[Martinus]

From my point of view, modern people like yourself crying because their language isn't special enough to everyone is just comical and silly. The idea that Canada is opressing you is just hilarious.

You can keep on trying to make this about me, with references to things you've made up that you claim happened, what, a decade ago? but it just makes you look that much more desperate and out of touch. It's not like I have a dog in this race - my opinion is completely motivated by you and grallons arguments - you've made me go from completely ambivalent to adamantly opposed to your position.

The best part is just how incapable you are of seeing how silly the entire thing is to nearly everyone else. You are lecturing a Pole about oppression and cultural domination by outsiders? Do you have even an inkling of how ridiculous that is?

This is pretty much how I feel as well. And unlike you, I am not from an English speaking country, so they can't just easily dismiss my view as "oh you would be talking differently if the roles were reversed".

[Martinus]

coming from someone you constantly bitched when another language than english was used on a forum, that is extremely funny

If I am in a company of people where everybody speaks one language and then only some of those present also speak another language, I just find it impolite to start talking in the language not everyone in the group understands - this goes both for speaking Polish in an English speaking group where not everyone understands Polish, and vice versa.

[Duque de Bragança]

Again, a completely wrong (and, frankly, offensive) comparison. By the way, the way you (or grallon) introduce those French words to English communication makes you look tres pretentieux.

Nice double standard! After your now infamous analogies (takes one like you to know about wrong and offensive comparisons), you continue to improve your act. Now, it's not ok for francophones to use French words in English but when it's trendy and understood for Anglos or Anglo-wannabees like you it's ok?
Your new "see i'm open to diversity by virtue of francophobia" is quite a contrast, compared to your not exactly diversity-loving attitude after the discovery of the "multicultural" Brussels.
But then, it's nothing compared to Polonisation in the glorious days of Poland. Yes, Poland has been on both sides of oppression. Just ask, say the (western) Ukrainians, who are no angels themselves, before you start going hysterical in your own very way.

Being French is a distinctive advantage in North America, it we look all the same as Ottawa or Toronto, there's really no reason for tourists to visit.

That would be possibly justified in tourist areas (such as Old Town or whatever Montreal has) but arguing that entire Quebec should subscribe to crazy language restrictions as if it was one big tourist park is quite silly (not to mention, I begin to see why you are losing people - are you also requiring all locals to wear berets, smoke long cigarettes and talk about Sartre in public?)

Pstt. Québécois are not Hollywood-style French people. Your francophobia shows up again. That, or you're as knowledgeable about France, Québec as about wine (icicles ftw!) when trying to pass as "western and liberal". Overcompensating much?

English isn't really a threat to Poland.  What is the probability that a part of your country will be solely english speaking within 2-3 generations?

I can see this happening. But so what? That's how cultural exchange works. To be honest I don't even understand the concept of a language being a "threat". A "threat" to what? Our precious bodily fluids? 

Like hell there will be an English-speaking part in Poland in 2-3 generations  How far New York is from Warsaw again? You are more likely to have to learn Russian as lingua franca as in the good old WP times though. How's that?

So your response to my points is that you can do/say whatever you like, because you say so? Remind me why we are even having this discussion again? 

Well, you are having this discussion to troll Viper and Grallon since you do not have a clue about the Francophone situation in Canada, à la Berkut (if you use the French saying spell it correctly please). I must confess it's funnier than your previous actions against Raz though.

[Martinus]

Again, a completely wrong (and, frankly, offensive) comparison. By the way, the way you (or grallon) introduce those French words to English communication makes you look tres pretentieux.

Nice double standard! After your now infamous analogies (takes one like you to know about wrong and offensive comparisons), you continue to improve your act. Now, it's not ok for francophones to use French words in English but when it's trendy and understood for Anglos or Anglo-wannabees like you it's ok?

Ok. This is too funny.

[Malthus]

Not responding to the entire rant (too time consuming) but I have to admit, this quote is irresistable:

Graham Fraser, an English Canadian journalist noted for his sympathy for Quebec, has tempered both sides. "This phenomenon (of English Canadian Francophobia) exists, I do not doubt it; I have read enough of Alberta Report to know that there are people that think bilingualism is a conspiracy against English Canadians to guarantee jobs for Quebecers — who are all bilingual, anyway.", he wrote. "I have heard enough call-in radio shows to know that these sentiments of fear and rage are not confined to the Canadian west. But I do not think these anti-francophone prejudices dominate the Canadian culture."[115] Fraser, in fact, was himself named as Canada's new Official Languages Commissioner in September 2006.

Translation: bureaucrat appointed to office designed to promote official bilingualism finds: opposition to bilingualism the worst example of bigotry possible.  Is completely unable to understand why unilingual anglophones feel disadvantaged in the federal jobs department compared with folks from Quebec - so the notion must be bigotry, not rational self-interest. Because lord knows, if there is one thing completely alien to a federal bureaucrat, it is rational self-interest.