[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[viper37]

A PM speaking French is bad

Yes of course, I feel the love
And that was the tamest reaction of the bunch.  But that it is an issue with the big medias just demonstrate how far we still have to go.

Speaking to a foreign head of state in a joint press conference in a language that head of state doesn't speak is basically bone-headed diplomacy.

he spoke to the press.  Wich includes canadian media, wich includes quebec media.

And *this* is the example you give of how people in Quebec are hard done by? 

Speaking french = bad thing for English Canadian medias.
There have been numerous other examples provided in the past.  If I need to repeat myself about non bilingual Supreme Court Judges, General Sollicitor, General Auditor, Foreign Relations cabinet minister, and so on, I'll have a full days work laid ahead in front of me.

[Malthus]

A PM speaking French is bad

Yes of course, I feel the love
And that was the tamest reaction of the bunch.  But that it is an issue with the big medias just demonstrate how far we still have to go.

Speaking to a foreign head of state in a joint press conference in a language that head of state doesn't speak is basically bone-headed diplomacy.

And *this* is the example you give of how people in Quebec are hard done by? 

he spoke to the press.  Wich includes canadian media, wich includes quebec media.

He spoke at a joint press conference with Obama, in an attempt to influence the Americans. Who couldn't understand what he was saying. 

That is slightly more significant than the fact that a tiny percentage of the continental North American TV audience could, no? After all, it isn't people in Quebec whom Harper was trying to convince to adopt a Canadian POV at a joint press conference with the US President, was it?

See, it is your sort of stance that makes people tune out to whatever valid points you may have. You seem absolutely convinced that massaging the ever-fragile Quebec ego on language issues is far, far more important than (say) actually achieving concrete goals - in this case, diplomatic progress on matters important to the country as a whole.

When public speaking, it is important to know your audience. IF Harper was addressing the European Union in a press conference, it would make perfect sense to start his speech in French. When addressing the Americans - who by and large don't speak French - it simply makes more sense to speak in a language they can comprehend - which is of course the point made in that article ... which, out of ALL the possible articles you could pick to illustrate your thesis (that English Canada distains Quebec), you chose. 

[Grey Fox]

This is the base catch-22 question a lot of federal politician must face. There is no pleasing people like Viper.

The ROC cannot accept that Quebec doesn't consider itselft part of Canada but simply paralel to it. When a politician accepts, understands & conducts his government* in such ways, they twist their panties very quickly.

*That government is also not helped by doing so only in insignificant ways.

[Valmy]

You can choose your head of State every 4 years.  Indirectly, but still, you have a say in who gets to vote for him.
I don't.

My head of state is the commander in chief of the most powerful military in the world and has massive power to influence not just our daily lives here in the US but around the world.

Your head of state has no power whatsoever and fills the same role the Bald Eagle serves in my country. I have just as much power to change the Bald Eagle as our national bird as you do in changing the Queen as Canada's mascot.

You cannot really compare the Queen of Canada to the President of the United States they are not even remotely constitutionally equivalent.

[Malthus]

You can choose your head of State every 4 years.  Indirectly, but still, you have a say in who gets to vote for him.
I don't.

My head of state is the commander in chief of the most powerful military in the world and has massive power to influence not just our daily lives here in the US but around the world.

Your head of state has no power whatsoever and fills the same role the Bald Eagle serves in my country. I have just as much power to change the Bald Eagle as our national bird as you do in changing the Queen as Canada's mascot.

You cannot really compare the Queen of Canada to the President of the United States they are not even remotely constitutionally equivalent.

Heh, if you could train a Bald Eagle to cut the ribbon on new public works ... that would be fucking awesome!  [and roughly equivalent to the Royals]

[Valmy]

It does seem like a waste to speak French to Americans.

Not to me

[viper37]

You can choose your head of State every 4 years.  Indirectly, but still, you have a say in who gets to vote for him.
I don't.

My head of state is the commander in chief of the most powerful military in the world and has massive power to influence not just our daily lives here in the US but around the world.

Your head of state has no power whatsoever and fills the same role the Bald Eagle serves in my country. I have just as much power to change the Bald Eagle as our national bird as you do in changing the Queen as Canada's mascot.

You cannot really compare the Queen of Canada to the President of the United States they are not even remotely constitutionally equivalent.

In case of a majority government, you are absolutely right.  When it comes to a minority government, the Queen or its representative has power of life and death over that government, as we have seen recently, it's the one who will decide if the parliament is suspended for a new round of elections or if a coallition will take over.

It is too great a power to be left in the hands of a non elected representative.

And then, there's the spending.  Regularly, governor general or lieutenant-governor will be called upon for dubious expenses.  Even if the government can recuperate a tiny part of that money, we spend it in trials and inquiry.  Just because they are non elected and "representative of the Queen" they seem to think everything can go.  No matter how honest that person was before, as we have seen with the Senate, they consider themselves above all other citizens, all other laws, as if they had a God given mandate.

This is disgusting.  Not that things like that do not happen with elected officials, especialy after a few mandates, but there are far less of them.  With the Senate, LGs and GG, this comes around and comes around and comes around.

Also, the US wasn't exactly a first world power in 1776, when you decided to have an elected President instead of a King.  So the example of being the guy who influenced world wide politics doesn't really apply to the original decision that was made.  If, like Garbon, you have a sweet spot for monarchy, I invite you to move up North, we could always use skilled workers to pay our taxes

[crazy canuck]

You can choose your head of State every 4 years.  Indirectly, but still, you have a say in who gets to vote for him.
I don't.

My head of state is the commander in chief of the most powerful military in the world and has massive power to influence not just our daily lives here in the US but around the world.

Your head of state has no power whatsoever and fills the same role the Bald Eagle serves in my country. I have just as much power to change the Bald Eagle as our national bird as you do in changing the Queen as Canada's mascot.

You cannot really compare the Queen of Canada to the President of the United States they are not even remotely constitutionally equivalent.

In case of a majority government, you are absolutely right.  When it comes to a minority government, the Queen or its representative has power of life and death over that government, as we have seen recently, it's the one who will decide if the parliament is suspended for a new round of elections or if a coallition will take over.

It is too great a power to be left in the hands of a non elected representative.

Viper, you are really do have a selective memory when it comes to this sort of thing.  There has been exactly 1 time in the history of Canada that the Queen's representative didn't do exactly what the government of the day wanted and that was the King Bing crisis of 1926.   When Harper asked the Governor General to dissolve parliament she did even though there were many on the left calling for her to do otherwise.  Because that is what Governor Generals do now.  They are just figure heads with absolutely no power.

One can make an argument that we should save money by removing all of those ceremonies.  But arguing that the office has any real power is absurd.

[viper37]

He spoke at a joint press conference with Obama, in an attempt to influence the Americans. Who couldn't understand what he was saying. 

he does *all* of his press conference in both languages.  Just like Merkel using German in her press conference.  And many other leaders using their language for press conferences.  Harper would not use Swahili in a press conference while visiting Mozambique or Kenya.  He will not use Dutch when visiting Brussels.  He would not speak Russian when visiting Moscow (not that it has any chance of happening now).  He won't speak Cantonese or another Chinese dialect if he visits Beijing.  I've nerver heard the PM using Yiddish while visiting Israel.  I don't think he speaks Farsi in Afghanistan.  I've never heard of a British Prime Minister speaking French during a press conference in Paris.  I don't think any of the Allied leaders used German when adressing the people after WWII.

Yet, that is never a problem.

But Harper dares use *both* official languages while on a visit in the USA and it's a catastrophy for Canada.  For shame!  Foreigners might thing we have two official languages on equal status in the country!

See, it is your sort of stance that makes people tune out to whatever valid points you may have. You seem absolutely convinced that massaging the ever-fragile Quebec ego on language issues is far, far more important than (say) actually achieving concrete goals - in this case, diplomatic progress on matters important to the country as a whole.

Approving of every single Israeli action without question, that is massaging the Jewish community, imho.
Respecting the spirit of bilinguism in this country is not massaging the ever-fragile Quebec ego on language issues, even if all the French Canadians were located here (you conveniently ignore there are other French speakers in the country).

When public speaking, it is important to know your audience. IF Harper was addressing the European Union in a press conference, it would make perfect sense to start his speech in French. When addressing the Americans - who by and large don't speak French - it simply makes more sense to speak in a language they can comprehend - which is of course the point made in that article ... which, out of ALL the possible articles you could pick to illustrate your thesis (that English Canada distains Quebec), you chose. 

see my point above.  Leaders of various countries use the language of their country at press conference.  They don't speak Japanese when in Japan, yet, it does not seem to be a problem there.  I've never seen a Macleans article saying our Ministers not speaking Chinese in Beijing was detrimental to our interests because the people did not understand him.

[viper37]

Viper, you are really do have a selective memory when it comes to this sort of thing.  There has been exactly 1 time in the history of Canada that the Queen's representative didn't do exactly what the government of the day wanted and that was the King Bing crisis of 1926.   When Harper asked the Governor General to dissolve parliament she did even though there were many on the left calling for her to do otherwise.  Because that is what Governor Generals do now.  They are just figure heads with absolutely no power.

It could have gone either way.  Yes, it does not often happen.  Our parliamentary system kinda makes sure that minority government are a rare occasion.  Wich could change if Trudean is elected and respect his promise of electoral reforms (I doubt he could even if he wanted to, but that's another debate).

One can make an argument that we should save money by removing all of those ceremonies.  But arguing that the office has any real power is absurd.

The powers are limited because the PM could remove a non compliant GG and replace it with another.  But the office holds power and could chose to try to use it.

Head of State and Head of GG should be merged into one elected position.

[Valmy]

Also, the US wasn't exactly a first world power in 1776, when you decided to have an elected President instead of a King.  So the example of being the guy who influenced world wide politics doesn't really apply to the original decision that was made.  If, like Garbon, you have a sweet spot for monarchy, I invite you to move up North, we could always use skilled workers to pay our taxes

It absolutely does. It took a long time to decide to have a President because of all the power that person would have. He might not have been a world power but he had tons of power inside the US. I am about as republican as they come but I just cannot get worked up about figure head monarchies, they are mascots not political figures.

It is too great a power to be left in the hands of a non elected representative.

Plenty of non-elected people have lots of power in Canada. The Queen is not one of them. Sure she may theoretically be able to influence something under some crazy set of circumstances but even if she had the chance she wouldn't because it would mean the death of her office. Besides, as you note on many occasions, she does not even live in Canada so is unlikely to have strong preferences for one party or another anyway.

[crazy canuck]

It could have gone either way.

Only if one doesn't understand the Constitutional conventions which are applicable.

[Valmy]

Head of State and Head of GG should be merged into one elected position.

There you go. You just need to get one Parliamentary majority to agree, or however you do constitutional changes up there.

Personally, I think ceremonial heads of state are pointless and pointless positions should not be elected. Elections are expensive so don't waste people's time or money.

[Malthus]

he does *all* of his press conference in both languages.  Just like Merkel using German in her press conference.  And many other leaders using their language for press conferences.  Harper would not use Swahili in a press conference while visiting Mozambique or Kenya.  He will not use Dutch when visiting Brussels.  He would not speak Russian when visiting Moscow (not that it has any chance of happening now).  He won't speak Cantonese or another Chinese dialect if he visits Beijing.  I've nerver heard the PM using Yiddish while visiting Israel.  I don't think he speaks Farsi in Afghanistan.  I've never heard of a British Prime Minister speaking French during a press conference in Paris.  I don't think any of the Allied leaders used German when adressing the people after WWII.

Yet, that is never a problem.

If the PM actually knew all of those languages, he'd be a fool not to use them when in those countries (BTW, as a historical note, it is Hebrew in Israel, not Yiddish). Reason: the purpose of diplomacy is to persuade, and using the language of the locals is more persuasive.

Working through interpreters is a necessary work-around, an understandable second best.

But Harper dares use *both* official languages while on a visit in the USA and it's a catastrophy for Canada.  For shame!  Foreigners might thing we have two official languages on equal status in the country!

Again, the point is that being more persuasive is - or ought to be -  more important than domestic considerations.

Approving of every single Israeli action without question, that is massaging the Jewish community, imho.
Respecting the spirit of bilinguism in this country is not massaging the ever-fragile Quebec ego on language issues, even if all the French Canadians were located here (you conveniently ignore there are other French speakers in the country).

The "spirit of bilingualism" could perfectly well be "respected" by using the language of one's hosts and audience *first*, so as to engage their attention.

see my point above.  Leaders of various countries use the language of their country at press conference.  They don't speak Japanese when in Japan, yet, it does not seem to be a problem there.  I've never seen a Macleans article saying our Ministers not speaking Chinese in Beijing was detrimental to our interests because the people did not understand him.

They certainly would if he was fluent in Chinese yet chose to speak French instead.

[viper37]

If the PM actually knew all of those languages, he'd be a fool not to use them when in those countries (BTW, as a historical note, it is Hebrew in Israel, not Yiddish). Reason: the purpose of diplomacy is to persuade, and using the language of the locals is more persuasive.

Diplomacy is not done at a press conference.  by then, they have reached an agreement, or not.  Everything has been discussed behind closed doors.

Press conference are done to inform the public, not to negotiate.

Again, the point is that being more persuasive is - or ought to be -  more important than domestic considerations.

and again, you fail to account for the fact that most world leaders use the language or their country during press conferences.

The "spirit of bilingualism" could perfectly well be "respected" by using the language of one's hosts and audience *first*, so as to engage their attention.

Chrétien used to speak English only when abroad.  Did that ever solve the softwood lumber crisis?

They certainly would if he was fluent in Chinese yet chose to speak French instead.

Merkel speaks english. Yet, she more often use German than English during press conferences.  I'm pretty sure a lot of British PM have learn to speak French, yet, I can't remember one using French during a press conference.

I still don't see the problem about using your country's official languages when you are at a press conference.  Using French when speaking directly to the American president and/or the officials you meet, that would be dumb.

I remember he got criticized for speaking French in front of Netanyahu while the guy speaks perfect French.