British citizen creates national uproar in Quebec

[Crazy_Ivan80]

just for info here: Belgium is a bit different from Canada.
Canada professes to be a truly bilingual nation, with both English and French being accorded official status in the whole nation.
Belgium, on the other hand, has 3 official languages (Dutch -the largest-, French and German -just a couple 10K) but isn't multilingual. Flanders is officially monolingual Dutch, Wallonia is officially monolingual French and Brussels is officially bilingual Dutch-French. Exceptions are made in socalled 'communities with facilities': in Flanders for french, in Wallonia for the dutch, and in the German Community (part of Wallonia) for German but in total that's about 20 or so communities (as in villages and stuff) in all of belgium.
Just so you kno the situation is at the same time very simple and very complicated (due to Brussels which is a once-upon-a-time flemish city turned mostly French in the rich parts, Euro in the European district and Arab in most of the rest)

[Neil]

French isn't really a global language, anymore than Russian, German or Chinese.  The imperialism of English continues unabated.

[Oexmelin]

The issue is whether certain citizen's ancestors are to be honoured into perpetuity over other citizens' ancestors.

If you want to put it that way, suit yourself.

But we already had this conversation, and I answered, to put it simply: yes - that's the reason we are under a British Parliamentary System, studying Common Law and Code Civil and not Ukranian Customs or organizing our bureaucracy around Confucean Ideals. Not because of the superiority of the British system, nor because of a conscious choice or perceived utility of any of those institutions. (*cue for Neil's trolling*).

This is not to say that any of these things are or should be unchanging. But Canada is neither a blank page nor an always changing country and in that regard, in a society which looks to «Rule of Law» as a guiding principle, then, yes, the character that helped structure and build these institutions which frame our everyday lives are French and British - not Ukranian or Chinese. I do not think it is outlandish or xenophobic to recognize it.

Countries are products of their history, and in Canada's case, its institutional history is both French and English.

Again: I do not care about utility. Some choices have to be about ideas and values. It is - or should be - about values and the idea of the country we'd like to shape. 

[Barrister]

Whil I suspect we would disagree with regards to how this view influences the Official Languages Act, I wholeheartedly endorse this argument.

[DontSayBanana]

You know, I'm surprised I'm not seeing more people bitching about how the doctor left the wound unbandaged for at least an hour. There's biohazard bins and sanitizers all over hospital facilities for a reason- you don't just take it as an article of faith that the facility is sterile. Rather than complaining about the "service," I'd be trying to get an investigation launched into the quality of care.

Pros and cons of bilingualism should also be taking a back seat here. There's a claim that the person in question was heard speaking English and then pretending not to understand to avoid answering a direct question. If part of that person's job is to answer question, then their sudden loss of ability to speak the language should lead to an equally sudden loss of the job.

[Zoupa]

So? What's your conclusion?

Mine is that the doctor either had a real limited grasp of english, or he was an asshole, or the author is full of shit and embellishing it.

Whatever it is, big fucking deal.

So why does Quebec care?

...

Or was Viper embellishing?

I had never heard of this story before reading it on languish, and I watch the news and read the papers daily.

I don't even think viper cares. I'm sure he posted it for the humour.

[Oexmelin]

Whil I suspect we would disagree with regards to how this view influences the Official Languages Act, I wholeheartedly endorse this argument.

I am glad, because that was partly my intent. We've all been on this board long enough to try to frame an argument in a manner where we can lucidly try to navigate our agreements and our disagreements, and push them the farthest we can, and recognize where the road splits.

[Martinus]

The issue is whether certain citizen's ancestors are to be honoured into perpetuity over other citizens' ancestors.

If you want to put it that way, suit yourself.

But we already had this conversation, and I answered, to put it simply: yes - that's the reason we are under a British Parliamentary System, studying Common Law and Code Civil and not Ukranian Customs or organizing our bureaucracy around Confucean Ideals. Not because of the superiority of the British system, nor because of a conscious choice or perceived utility of any of those institutions. (*cue for Neil's trolling*).

This is not to say that any of these things are or should be unchanging. But Canada is neither a blank page nor an always changing country and in that regard, in a society which looks to «Rule of Law» as a guiding principle, then, yes, the character that helped structure and build these institutions which frame our everyday lives are French and British - not Ukranian or Chinese. I do not think it is outlandish or xenophobic to recognize it.

Countries are products of their history, and in Canada's case, its institutional history is both French and English.

Again: I do not care about utility. Some choices have to be about ideas and values. It is - or should be - about values and the idea of the country we'd like to shape.

So your argument essentially is that it is fine for the society to give one group of people (identified by an arbitrary characteristic) special privileges and/or respect (which involves everybody else being required to devote certain resources - such as study time in this case - to accommodate such privileges) - and at the same time deny such privileges to other groups of people - not because this is efficient, fair or deserved but because this has traditionally been so?

That is a pure definition of aristocracy.

[Oexmelin]

Pros and cons of bilingualism should also be taking a back seat here. There's a claim that the person in question was heard speaking English and then pretending not to understand to avoid answering a direct question. If part of that person's job is to answer question, then their sudden loss of ability to speak the language should lead to an equally sudden loss of the job.

Considering the author and the tone of the article, I suspect a British accent (which we hear very little of, here) might be to blame and then got blown out of proportion by the author. Or the fact that the doctor in question is an idiot.

[Zoupa]

Yeah but weren't you advocating that the entire country should be bilingual? If people in Catalonia are bilingual it's one thing, but if we applied your previous proposition to Spain, every Spaniard should be bilingual.

The difference is that Catalan is a local tongue, like Welsh.  So there's no real benefit in everyone in Spain learning it while it's good for Catalans (or Welsh) and learning one language at a young age makes learning another easier, for example I imagine most Spanish high schools teach English or French.  I think all Canada should learn French and English because neither language is just a Canadian regional language, they're both global.  So it's like kids in Scotland learning French.

French is more of a regional language in Canada - a very large country indeed. While there are large French-speaking minorities outside of Quebec (particularly in some parts of Northern Ontario, the Metis in Manitoba, and New Brunswick), in vast parts of Canada hardly anyone speaks it. In Southern Ontario and in British Columbia, Chinese would be considerably more useful than French; in Saskatchewan, Ukranian. Why not have kids speaking these languages (often their own ancestral languages) instead, if there are only resources to teach one additional language?

Not that learning French isn't rewarding for its own sake, mind you. But the notion it is more than a regional language in Canada isn't really correct. You are no more likely to hear French spoken in Toronto than in London, and politics aside there is no more reason (and of course no less) to learn it here than there.

And that's really the rub: the only reason to learn the language in most of English Canada (as opposed to any other) is, basically, political: to make Quebequois comfortable with confederation. Like anything done essentially to appease someone elses' anxieties, it appears pointless and onerous to its victims - schoolkids - even though of course learning a language is always "a good thing".

What rankles in Quebec is of course the fact that the reverse is not true. Learning English is essential to avoid being trapped in provincialism, since much of the world communicates in it as the "lingua francia" (ironically enough).

Either French is a founding culture of Canada, or it is not. You can't declare Quebec is a nation, a founding culture etc. and then want to reduce it to "french is just one more little icon in our glorious canadian multicultural mosaic!". That kind of modern condescension from anglo canada is pretty lame.

In any case, 99% don't give a crap what you teach your kids in your province, it certainly doesn't affect their feelings towards the confederation. I don't know where you got that from  Les deux solitudes...

But thanks again for telling us how we feel, what rankles us and what our "anxieties" are. Some things never change 

[Martinus]

Or the fact that the doctor in question is an idiot.

Well, we know that, since he didn't speak English. Any college-educated person living today (not just in Canada - where English is an official language - but pretty much anywhere in the world), especially in a profession like medicine, which relies on peer review and being up-to-date with international developments, who doesn't have at least a rudimentary knowledge of English must be an idiot.

[Oexmelin]

So your argument essentially is that it is fine for the society to give one group of people (identified by an arbitrary characteristic) special privileges and/or respect (which involves everybody else being required to devote certain resources - such as study time in this case - to accommodate such privileges) - and at the same time deny such privileges to other groups of people - not because this is efficient, fair or deserved but because this has traditionally been so?

That is a pure definition of aristocracy.

You have a strange definition of aristocracy. Why weren't Poles glad to have to learn Russian or German in school and to forget about Polish ?

If you had called it tradition I would have been fine with it. In this case, no one is depriving anyone of anything. There is time alloted for the learning of a second language and that language has been picked by the State as part of its national identity, because the right to learn a second language of your chosing doesn't exist. Just like the language of teaching in any country I am aware of is usually decided by the State if you chose to go to public school - bar some specific exceptions. Just like we decide to cling to British Parliamentary tradition to the detriment of American or French Presidential / Republican tradition and no one is out there claiming the American or French newcomers are being unfairly repressed in their political leanings while we unjustly favour citizens of British descent.

[Zoupa]

Or the fact that the doctor in question is an idiot.

Well, we know that, since he didn't speak English. Any college-educated person living today (not just in Canada - where English it is an official language - but pretty much anywhere in the world) who doesn't have at least a rudimentary knowledge of English must be an idiot.

Of course he knows english you moron. Most medical studies are in english. He probably didn't want to speak english because he was being a prick, or the author is a liar.

[Martinus]

Or the fact that the doctor in question is an idiot.

Well, we know that, since he didn't speak English. Any college-educated person living today (not just in Canada - where English it is an official language - but pretty much anywhere in the world) who doesn't have at least a rudimentary knowledge of English must be an idiot.

Of course he knows english you moron. Most medical studies are in english. He probably didn't want to speak english because he was being a prick, or the author is a liar.

LOL this is rich. Listen, cretin, you said yourself:

So? What's your conclusion?

Mine is that the doctor either had a real limited grasp of english [...]

So what is it? Are you a moron like me for thinking the doctor has no substantial knowledge of English, or are you just trying to excuse this inexcusable behaviour for which the guy should have been fired, because of your anti-English chauvinism?

[Zoupa]

I don't think you know what "either" means.