Canadian Language Education Questions

[Barrister]

Guys, I'd just ignore Berkut.  He's on his "I'm the only one who truly understands human rights and liberty" kick he sometimes goes on.

I mean - self-determination has been widely understood as a right for over a century - but Berkut marches in to say it shouldn't exist because he says so.  He's just on a different wavelength than most people.

Unilateral self determination has NEVER been understood as a right, ever. That is simply not true, and it is truly unfair to claim that I've only supported my position "because I said so". You might not agree with my arguments, but to claim I haven't made them is simply not at all true.

It goes back as far as Wilson's 14 points.

You confuse a consideration for self-determination as one of many, many factors involved with a unilateral right to self-determination, which for many reasons I've pointed out and you've ignored, simply does not exist - indeed, cannot exist.

Except that both Canada, and the UK, have recognized that it does exist.

You can quibble about the details, but if Quebec, or Scotland, want to be independent, the nations involved have agreed they should be allowed to.

[Martinus]

What about Donetsk and Crimea?

[Berkut]

Guys, I'd just ignore Berkut.  He's on his "I'm the only one who truly understands human rights and liberty" kick he sometimes goes on.

I mean - self-determination has been widely understood as a right for over a century - but Berkut marches in to say it shouldn't exist because he says so.  He's just on a different wavelength than most people.

Unilateral self determination has NEVER been understood as a right, ever. That is simply not true, and it is truly unfair to claim that I've only supported my position "because I said so". You might not agree with my arguments, but to claim I haven't made them is simply not at all true.

It goes back as far as Wilson's 14 points.

You confuse a consideration for self-determination as one of many, many factors involved with a unilateral right to self-determination, which for many reasons I've pointed out and you've ignored, simply does not exist - indeed, cannot exist.

Except that both Canada, and the UK, have recognized that it does exist.

You can quibble about the details, but if Quebec, or Scotland, want to be independent, the nations involved have agreed they should be allowed to.

That is because they have decided that they can due to a variety of factors, self-determination being only one of them.

They have not said that any group that wants to secede can do so. Hence no unilateral self-determination.

And I am not arguing that if the Scots vote to secede, the UK should invade and subjugate them and force them to stay, the same with Quebec.

Hell, if the US had decided that the South could secede (say they ahd passed a law in Congress stipulating how that might happen and it was signed by the President) then that would certainly be legal (again, it would be a bad thing to do, and I am glad they did not) but perfectly legal and most decidedly NOT a example of a unilateral right to self-determination.

[Martinus]

Ok, wikipedia to the rescue:

There is a right of nations to self-determination, but when it conflicts with the territorial integrity of states, the latter takes precedence:

"National self-determination appears to challenge the principle of territorial integrity (or sovereignty) of states as it is the will of the people that makes a state legitimate. This implies a people should be free to choose their own state and its territorial boundaries. However, there are far more self-identified nations than there are existing states and there is no legal process to redraw state boundaries according to the will of these peoples.[44] According to the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, the UN, ICJ and international law experts, there is no contradiction between the principles of self-determination and territorial integrity, with the latter taking precedence."

So in short, Scots can decide to leave the UK and form a new state, but if they want to take the part of the UK territory they consider "Scotland" with them, the UK has to agree. Likewise, the Quebecois can just fuck off from Canada and move to France, but if they want to take a part of the Canadian territory with them, then Canada has a say in that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination#Self-determination_versus_territorial_integrity

[Barrister]

What about Donetsk and Crimea?

If Donetsk and Crimea, as part of a free and fair democratic election monitored by the international community, wished to join Russia I would have no complaints.

Of course that is miles away from what has happened in those regions.

[Martinus]

I would also like to add a little detail about Wilson's 14 points - they only affected territories of states that capitulated in a war (or were about to) and were not, therefore, in a sovereign control of their own territory - which, back then, was considered a valid exception to the principle of territorial integrity of a state.

[Berkut]

ZOMG? You mean there is no such thing as some agreed right for groups of people right to leave whenever they get some percentage of a majority vote?

Does this mean...that Barristers claim that there was such a right was just something he claimed was true "because he said so"???

[Martinus]

ZOMG? You mean there is no such thing as some agreed right for groups of people right to leave whenever they get some percentage of a majority vote?

Does this mean...that Barristers claim that there was such a right was just something he claimed was true "because he said so"???

He is right, from a formalistic perspective, as there indeed is a "right" to leave (as a people, not a territory). But that right is not absolute, as it is subject to the principle of territorial integrity which trumps the right of self-determination (so the nation willing to leave cannot take part of the former state's territory with them, without the former state's agreement).

Given that you have no formal legal training, I would say you are right, as your description of the situation was right in principle (even though it would probably not score the top marks at an international law exam) and BB should recognise that and his failure to do so is a bit intellectually dishonest.

[Rex Francorum]

Problem is that if you don't actually use a language, you lose it quickly. Taking some classes in school is not enough.

Exactly. Until I go to university, I forgot all the english classes I had at elementary and high schools. I litterally learned english learned by myself.

[Martinus]

Sorry, my previous three posts (and Berkut's response to one of them) were meant to be posted in the Quebec language thread, not here - could a kind mod move them please? 

[Martinus]

What about Donetsk and Crimea?

If Donetsk and Crimea, as part of a free and fair democratic election monitored by the international community, wished to join Russia I would have no complaints.

Of course that is miles away from what has happened in those regions.

Ok, by mistake I posted my responses in the Scottish independence thread - asked a mod to move here but in the meantime you can read it there.

Essentially, what international law says is that there is indeed a right to self determination, but it is trumped by the principle of territorial integrity - so yes, a nation can choose to leave, but if it wants to take a part of the territory with them, the state which loses the territory has to agree. This I think addresses the biggest misconception most people have about the "right of self determination".

[Admiral Yi]

My impression is that most, if not all, anglophone residents of Quebec are bilingual.

88% as of 2011. 80% for 0-19.

Damn I'm good.

[HVC]

So based on this thread it sounds like that in all students in Canada should have some familiarity with both official languages; is that a fair assessment?

French speakers start english lessons in 1st grade.
English speakers start french lessons in 7th grade.

i started French in public school in grade 1 (90/91) did the policy change in Ontario?

It likely goes without saying, but that's probably overly broad, right?

[Crazy_Ivan80]

And many Canadians have trouble understanding that Quebec wants to keep its language and culture.

But the way you do that is by getting your future generations invested/interested/dare I say excited about your language and culture. Propping them up by artificial means like laws aren't going to matter much if people are uninterested.

that's not how it works in the real world I'm afraid.

Anglo-Canada smells a lot like Franco-Belgium until -and against heavy oppostion of the francophones there- was reformed so that Dutch was recognised as an equal and official language in Flanders (the result being the surreal situation where the basically monolingual Dutch region of Flanders was officialy bilingual and the monolingual francophone region was unilingual French, dispite a massive amount (up to 25% of population in certain places) of dutch-speaking immigrants. Luckily even that bilingual nonsense was relegated to the dustbin of history after some more decades). But before that the francophone belgian state also had freedom of language.
Which of course meant: freedom for the francophones to not speak and understand dutch and the freedom for neerlandophones to useFrench when dealing with the government or have no contact with the government at all. (leading to situations where parents wanted to register their children in Dutch -as was their right- and the official refusing to register because he didn't want to use Dutch, leading to a court-case where the -francophoen Judge- of course said that the official had that right.

So in the real world it's often necessary to enact laws that contain a larger/stronger -oppressing, even- language in order the safeguard the rights of the speakers smaller/weaker language.

EDIT: "in public" usually means in regards to the government. What one speaks on the street is one's own business.

[Duque de Bragança]

What I found weird is that we learned Parisian French, not the French the speak in quebec.

Escutar-te a falar francês "padrão" deve ser hilário, ó H.... Ao julgar pelo português.
Anglo Canadian-Azorean-Lisboete-"French" (Canadian and Parisian?) pidgin. Wunderbar!