Canadian Language Education Questions

[Martinus]

But that would be an infringement on that person's individual rights to hire whom he/she wants.

Unless you hold extremely libertarian/right wing views, I think in the modern Western world it is a pretty accepted principle that you cannot freely discriminate in hiring based on arbitrary qualities that are not related to the ability to perform the job. 

It seems it is ok to infring on one's individual rights to prevent un undesired side effect.

Not really, at least not in principle. It is a balancing exercise. You have to establish that the side effect is indeed undesirable in the first place, objectively speaking (and, in particular, the measure is not founded in an animus), that there is no alternative (less onerous) way of preventing that effect from occurring, and that the limitation of individual rights is proportional to the good being protected. Only then what you say is true.

I don't think a measure to prevent people from speaking a foreign language in public (even if you exempt the obvious idiocy of e.g. requiring foreigners / tourists to speak the local language) passes that test.

[viper37]

Unless you hold extremely libertarian/right wing views, I think in the modern Western world it is a pretty accepted principle that you cannot freely discriminate in hiring based on arbitrary qualities that are not related to the ability to perform the job. 

So how is it discrimination than to protect french speakers?

Not really, at least not in principle. It is a balancing exercise. You have to establish that the side effect is indeed undesirable in the first place, objectively speaking (and, in particular, the measure is not founded in an animus), that there is no alternative (less onerous) way of preventing that effect from occurring, and that the limitation of individual rights is proportional to the good being protected. Only then what you say is true.

And the side effect of not offering public education in english for immigrants would be...? 

I don't think a measure to prevent people from speaking a foreign language in public (even if you exempt the obvious idiocy of e.g. requiring foreigners / tourists to speak the local language) passes that test.

Again, you take Grallon's meaning way too literally.

It's not about regulating what you speak in a shopping centre, it's about regulating the work place: offering a french or bilingual working place, not an exclusively english working place.
It's about the language of education, with exceptions.  On that, I think we are close to "ok".  As I said, I would forgo the whole commonwealth thing for US and Canada.  A child that began its education in english for a few years has the right to continue in english, so long as he studied in Canada or the US.  Don't much care for Nigeria and India, if that makes me racist, so be it.
It's about the general portrait of the city: no "Cattelli's noodle" sign to deface old Quebec city.  No advertising in english only as it used to be in the 50s.  No "speak white or get lost" when you enter a store.

Rights of the minority have to be protected, and that will always offend the intolerent ones.  Gay rights offend the bigots, that's a given.  As you said, it's a measure of balance: the right for gay guy or girl to work is greater than the religious conviction of someone who think they are all evil.

Same with language: the right for anglo speakers to establish for supremacy or the right for the francos to live their lives as they fit.  Doesn't matter if French is a doomed language, it's our right.

[viper37]

Also, why do you love strawmen so much?

Because it was the reality before the language laws forced people to change their minds? 

I've already said in this thread that I think it is good to have laws that allow people to converse in whatever language they choose. But that's not really what Quebec's language laws are about, now is it?

Quebec's language laws are about reaffirming the French language supremacy to avoid going back to the time, pre-laws, where everything was done in English whenever you needed interaction beyond your village.

Prior to this, english knowledge was required for something as simple as working in a clothes store.  It was required to read the Sears' catalogue because orders were only available in english.

Without any language laws, we would slowly revert back to this time period. Just as if we removed discrimination laws against sexual orientation and race, we would slowly revert back to the 19th century.

[viper37]

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.

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

I think it's 1hr a week in 1st to 3rd grade.  It then increases gradually in 4th, 5th grade and then half a year in english for 6th grade, for all classes.
Can't be sure about the exact numbers, don't trust me on this.  Tried to find it, found a lenghy document filled with educational mumbo jumbo that doesn't make any sense, can't find the total hours per week dedicated to english, decided to forget about it.

As for the english, this is valid for Ontario and New Brunswick. Don't think it's radically different in other provinces.

My son is currently having French, and he is in grade 4.

well, then things have changed.
glad to hear it

[Martinus]

Sorry, viper, I have to respond to your post one by one, as it is all over the place

It's not about regulating what you speak in a shopping centre, it's about regulating the work place: offering a french or bilingual working place, not an exclusively english working place.

But what does it mean? Requiring people to only speak one language (also, assuming, in private conversations) at a work place is something quite different (and wrong) than requiring a non-domestic language capability in a work place. For example, I work for an international law firm and while we do speak Polish to each other in the Warsaw office (and, obviously, when meeting Polish clients) we do have to speak English to serve foreign clients (and this means that, in practice, most of my work, especially in writing, is done in English). Sure, you could argue whether a requirement like that would be proportional in a store, but I suppose if a large part of your clientele did not speak Polish, I see it justified. Again, I am not sure what you are arguing - are you saying that a shop in Quebec should not be able to require English capability from its employees?

It's about the language of education, with exceptions.  On that, I think we are close to "ok".  As I said, I would forgo the whole commonwealth thing for US and Canada.  A child that began its education in english for a few years has the right to continue in english, so long as he studied in Canada or the US.  Don't much care for Nigeria and India, if that makes me racist, so be it.

Not sure if it is racist, just dumb. 

It's about the general portrait of the city: no "Cattelli's noodle" sign to deface old Quebec city.  No advertising in english only as it used to be in the 50s.

I don't see a problem with foreign language signs on private stores. In Poland, the word "sale" has become quite common to display (without the Polish more mouthful of an equivalent "wyprzedaz") and noone (well, perhaps, with the exception of a few nationalist linguists) has a problem with that. Especially when you are running a store where your clientele is either bilingual (like many modern Poles) or does not speak Polish but speaks English (like most tourists), it just seems more efficient.

Haven't seen Polish TV advertising done in a foreign language only but wouldn't have a problem with that. Obviously, at least those Poles who subscribe to cable already get most TV in a foreign language. And, of course, online, it is pretty common to have foreign language advertising.

No "speak white or get lost" when you enter a store.

Here I agree. Don't like racism and bigotry.

Rights of the minority have to be protected, and that will always offend the intolerent ones.  Gay rights offend the bigots, that's a given.  As you said, it's a measure of balance: the right for gay guy or girl to work is greater than the religious conviction of someone who think they are all evil.

Same with language: the right for anglo speakers to establish for supremacy or the right for the francos to live their lives as they fit.  Doesn't matter if French is a doomed language, it's our right.

Ok, but again, these examples are completely different (with the possible exception of the "speak white or get out"). If I see an ad on TV that features a heterosexual family or shows, e.g., a heterosexual male, I may end up thinking that the ad is obviously not targeted at me (and, if the company at the same time makes a statement, like the pasta guy some time ago, that they will never show a gay couple in one of their ads, I may consider taking my business elsewhere and boycotting them) but I don't think it would be appropriate to require every company to make two ads, one with heteros and one for gays. 

Prior to this, english knowledge was required for something as simple as working in a clothes store.  It was required to read the Sears' catalogue because orders were only available in english.

See above my comment about the work place. I have friends who work for international/European manufacturing or sales companies (Syt is in a similar position, and several other Languish people, I think, so can confirm) and they do all the shipping, sales, distribution etc. stuff in English, because it is the "lingua franca" of Europe. When I talk to my French, German or Swedish clients, I do so in English, etc. Again, this seems like an objective criteria to me - Sears in an American company so it is natural that internal communication would be done in English (and, to be honest, based from what I have seen from my clients, multinationals based in France, Germany or Spain also, in most cases, use English for internal communication).

And for the record, while knowledge of Polish would probably help an expat living in Warsaw, if there was a choice, going for English rather than Polish would give him or her better employment opportunities. Does it suck that Polish is not a universal language of international commerce? Perhaps (but this means an English speaking Pole knows on average one more language than a Brit). But it would be mindboggling to me to try and legislate that away somehow.

[Valmy]

Holy shit Carl is in Grade 4?  Damn.

[Berkut]

The key difference Marty, the very key that in your ignorance you are missing, because Poles have not experienced it, is this:

Poland does not have the history of strangulation and oppressive subjugation by foreign powers that Quebec has had, so you just don't understand their need to protect their precious fluids from the enslaving Canucks.

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

[Razgovory]

 

[Martinus]

 

[Grey Fox]

You know the reason Vipr seems to have so much trouble justifying this might be why that thing never polls above ~36% nowadays & never polled over ~70%.

[grumbler]

You know the reason Vipr seems to have so much trouble justifying this might be why that thing never polls above ~36% nowadays & never polled over ~70%.

I think that you are right.  It is hard trying to intellectualize an emotional response.

I don't have a problem with Quebec insisting that French gets a level playing field.  It's the idea that English advertising (e.g.) is somehow evil that jumps the shark.  I have lived in neighborhoods where a substantial portion of the advertising was in Spanish, and I wasn't even tempted to forget how to speak English.

[Malthus]

  @ Berkut

[Malthus]

Holy shit Carl is in Grade 4?  Damn.

They grow fast. 

[Grey Fox]

You know the reason Vipr seems to have so much trouble justifying this might be why that thing never polls above ~36% nowadays & never polled over ~70%.

I think that you are right.  It is hard trying to intellectualize an emotional response.

I don't have a problem with Quebec insisting that French gets a level playing field.  It's the idea that English advertising (e.g.) is somehow evil that jumps the shark.  I have lived in neighborhoods where a substantial portion of the advertising was in Spanish, and I wasn't even tempted to forget how to speak English.

It's all historical & pseudo-historical.

[Berkut]

You know the reason Vipr seems to have so much trouble justifying this might be why that thing never polls above ~36% nowadays & never polled over ~70%.

I think that you are right.  It is hard trying to intellectualize an emotional response.

I don't have a problem with Quebec insisting that French gets a level playing field.  It's the idea that English advertising (e.g.) is somehow evil that jumps the shark.  I have lived in neighborhoods where a substantial portion of the advertising was in Spanish, and I wasn't even tempted to forget how to speak English.

It's all historical & pseudo-historical.

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?