Canada to firmly re-assess its status as a British colony

[Malthus]

The issue is this: is it right for a majority to impose measures upon the children of immigrants contrary to the expressed interest of the parents *and* in fact contrary to their actual self interest - where the "pressing societal purpose" is to ensure that a cultural majority remains a cultural majority?

Ok what you are claiming basically calls the entire US educational system unjust.  In fact having an education system at all is unjust.  What exactly would a just educational system look like?  I have never heard that allowing the majority to shape public education was something that should not happen.  Who should shape it?  Hans' unelected God-Emperors?

And further again...how is it contrary to somebody's best interests?

Are you seriously asserting that the US educational system educates immigrant children "contrary to their expressed interests" and "contrary to their actual self-interest", and in fact that *all* educational systems do?

Please provide an example of the way in which the US educational system educates children contrary to their expressed and actual interests.

[viper37]

The only way to avoid being caught is to have a school that isn't even accredited for potential subsidies. Private schools are caught if accredited.

Change your mind any?

Private schools are subsidized for 60% of their costs.  There are 100% un-subsidized private schools tough.  In fact, with a recent SCC judgement, one individual can send his kids to a 100% un-subsidized private english school for a few years and then obtain the right to attend public school for this kid, the other kids in the family and all their descendants.

Lots of people seem to think like Malthus, that unless you attend english school you'll be unilingual francophone.  It simply requires a lot more efforts from the parents.  Wich is apparently something hard to get nowadays, to have parents interested in the education of their kids and making real efforts.

[viper37]

It's something *they*, the immigrants, dislike - because they believe it harms their prospects.

Again, I've never head these immigrants complain.  The Canadians do complain for them, tough.

[viper37]

It's something *they*, the immigrants, dislike - because they believe it harms their prospects.

So I was wrong and the Francophone schools do not teach English?

I keep hoping one of you Quebeckers will pop in and say something about how awesome/crappy English instruction in Quebec is or one of you other Canadians.

We are taught English from 1st grade through the end of high school, tough I find the English classes lacking in quality at most public schools.
I don't think we produce 100% bilingual people at the end of high school, wich should be our goal.

Still, we have 11 years of mandatory English classes as second language.  English education is far superior at College and University level, but it's not mandatory for everyone, only for some specific field of studies, like business admin, among others.  In my case, I was given the highest level of English accessible at College, the other being English litterature, and there were not enough students to warrant it, unfortunately.  One of the perks of living in a small town.

[viper37]

In point of fact, the majority of immigrant citizens prefer having their kids educated in English, and they are acting rationally to do so exactly *because* it will enable their kids to function *perfectly fine*.

They can get English education in 9 provinces out of 10.  Yet, they chose to live in Quebec, the only French province.  Why assimilate their kids to English if they didn't want to participate in our society? 

[viper37]

It also means that, if given a choice, it is the language you'd want to know *best* exactly because it is the most useful and functional to *you*.

what you mean to tell is that unless you are educated in a language, it is impossible to learn it.
I wonder how I learn the language, what with living in a 99% French only area, 4hrs away from Montreal and the nearest english speaking community?

[crazy canuck]

In point of fact, the majority of immigrant citizens prefer having their kids educated in English, and they are acting rationally to do so exactly *because* it will enable their kids to function *perfectly fine*.

They can get English education in 9 provinces out of 10.  Yet, they chose to live in Quebec, the only French province.  Why assimilate their kids to English if they didn't want to participate in our society?

Because your society is bilingual.  If you passed draconian laws you would probably experience a drop in immigration.  You cant have it both ways.

[grumbler]

And it does effect others.  It effects the "French" nature of the province.  The more conversations in English, the less French is spoken.

  Now the discussion has jumped the shark!

[viper37]

The issue is this: is it right for a majority to impose measures upon the children of immigrants contrary to the expressed interest of the parents *and* in fact contrary to their actual self interest - where the "pressing societal purpose" is to ensure that a cultural majority remains a cultural majority?

right?  I do not know.  From a libertarian point of view, no.
From the perspective of any modern society, yes.

Kids are supposed to attend school until the age of 14. It is mandatory.  That is a clear case of the majority deciding what is best for the children instead of the parents.  Lots of parents would want their kids to stop school at a young age and start to work.

Some Jewish and Muslim communities do not want their children to be taught westerne values.  Equality of men and women, the value of democracy, self choices for your future, modern biology, etc, etc.  They would prefer to have their kids learn practical skills: sewing, cooking, diamond cutting, God created the universe as it is, etc,etc.  We do trample their right by forcing them to either adapt their curriculum to our values or send their kids to a school that will teach these. And we do this because we believe the skills we teach are superior to what the parents have chosen for them.

Language is just another issue.  I never heard of English Canadians funding movements to protest against the fact that creationism is not taught in schools.  We are trempling the rights of the creationists by not teaching them a religious point of view in science.

Ethics classes teaching the basics of all religion are not accepted by all.  Many Christians feel we are destroying our society with this.  Yet, the courts have rejected their argument.  A clear case of tyranny by the majority.

Why does it apply only for language issues?  Why not make a fuss about everything else?

[grumbler]

In point of fact, the majority of immigrant citizens prefer having their kids educated in English, and they are acting rationally to do so exactly *because* it will enable their kids to function *perfectly fine*.

They can get English education in 9 provinces out of 10.  Yet, they chose to live in Quebec, the only French province.  Why assimilate their kids to English if they didn't want to participate in our society? 

Imaginary people are often illogical as well.

[viper37]

Because your society is bilingual.  If you passed draconian laws you would probably experience a drop in immigration.  You cant have it both ways.

Malthus is arguing that we already have draconian laws.

We choose our immigrants, we have a pre-selection of candidates before the final approval of the feds.
Not our problem if someone tells them they can live in English in Quebec, wich is not really the case outside of Montreal and some small towns in the Eastern Townships.

The laws could be more flexible, allowing for kids arriving at high school level to keep studying in english, while not affecting future generations, but apparently, that's a legal nightmare to enact.

[The Minsky Moment]

Huh? The government isn't providing services for its *own* good out of the goodness of its heart, but for that of its citizens, who after all pay the taxes, right?

It is for the citizens to decide - but in this case, they are deciding, not in the interests of the children, but in the interests of a majority block *against* the (perceived) interests of the children and their parents.

This is a classic tyranny of the majority situation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

Tryanny of the majority involves violation of a fundamental human right; what human right is being violating by the provincial requirement that public school instruction be done in the official provincial language?

[The Minsky Moment]

It's something *they*, the immigrants, dislike - because they believe it harms their prospects.

Again, I've never head these immigrants complain.

Selection bias . . .

[crazy canuck]

Because your society is bilingual.  If you passed draconian laws you would probably experience a drop in immigration.  You cant have it both ways.

Malthus is arguing that we already have draconian laws.

We choose our immigrants, we have a pre-selection of candidates before the final approval of the feds.
Not our problem if someone tells them they can live in English in Quebec, wich is not really the case outside of Montreal and some small towns in the Eastern Townships.

The laws could be more flexible, allowing for kids arriving at high school level to keep studying in english, while not affecting future generations, but apparently, that's a legal nightmare to enact.

on my reading of the policy on the government website such accomodations can be made.  In my view your laws would become Draconian if they deny the ability to learn English.

Malthus and I part company on this point if what he is saying is that government funding models cannot favour one language over another.  They certainly do in this province - where the majority of instruction is in English and French immersion classes are hard to get.  I am not sure why Quebec cannot also make a political decision where it spends its recources.

I am arguing against the horrible hypothetical of a Grallonite society where French is the only language which is acceptable and the rest be damned.

[dps]

If people don't want their children educated in French, why the fuck would they immigrate to Quebec?  I mean, I'm sure no one (or almost no one) who doen'st speak French immigrates to Quebec simply so that their children will be educated in French, but if it's a deal-breaker, then don't move there!  Shit, even moving within a country, there are tradeoffs that you have to make as to where is the best place for you to live.  If you choose to immigrate to Quebec, the fact that your children will be educated in French unless you can afford private education is just a fact of life, same as there will be cold winters there.  Again, if it's a deal-breaker, move somewhere else instead.