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

[Barrister]

I am not sure I see the issue.  The Language laws differ in different provinces yes?

Are the laws in Quebec not consistent with the federal laws?  Are they given some sort of special status to advance Frenchiness?

There are no language laws in other provinces.  Quebec laws are most certainly not consistent with Federal law.  They prefer French over English.  That is the whole point.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/laws/stat/rsa-2000-c-l-6/latest/rsa-2000-c-l-6.html

for starters...

You are a bit slow on the uptake there BB, what part of that legislation says English must be preferred to French.  I am curious as to why Alberta felt the need to say that their statutes were valid if only printed in English.  Do you know why.  Also does any other Province do this?

Wait... I catch you in a mistake (but one easy enough to make),  and yo go on the attack calling me "slow on the uptake"?

You said:

There are no language laws in other provinces.

Which is patently incorrect.  Many if not most provinces have a Languages Act or an Official Languages Act.  And if I were grumbler, I'd probably brow-beat you with your mistake for the next several pages.  But thankfully I'm not grumbler.

As to why Alberta would specify that English only laws are acceptable... are you not familiar with the Manitoba Languages Reference from the late 70s, early 80s?  Under the Manitoba Act all laws were to be in both English and French, but some time in the late 19th century they stopped doing that, and passed English-only laws.

The SCC struck down every law ever passed in the province from that point on because they were only in English.  They did give Manitoba one year's grace however, so after spending a fortune on translation, Manitoba did re-pass all of its laws.

Now I think the Alberta Act contains different language rights than the Manitoba Act, but I guess to be safe they put that wording in the Alberta Language Act.

[Malthus]

...

The language laws in Quebec serve the opposite function: to enhance the language rights of the french-speaking majority at the expense of the minority.

I am not moved to tears over our minority's fate.  If they're not satisfied - Canada is that way.  And considering the rate of assimilation of those French minorities outside of Quebec - we'll keep the languages laws firmly in place here.




G.

Yeah, well, not being moved to tears by violations of the rights of minorities is not exactly an unknown position for you. 

[crazy canuck]

Wait... I catch you in a mistake (but one easy enough to make),  and yo go on the attack calling me "slow on the uptake"?

This is you being too literal again and missing the subtext.  The context of the answer was that no other Provinces have language laws like Quebec.  English is not preferred to French in any province in the same way as French is preferred to English in Quebec.  That is why I said you were slow on the uptake.

And the Quebec law is not consistent with Federal law which requires equal access to both languages within reason. IE in the Federal Legislation one language is not preferred over the other.

[Barrister]

Wait... I catch you in a mistake (but one easy enough to make),  and yo go on the attack calling me "slow on the uptake"?

This is you being too literal again and missing the subtext.  The context of the answer was that no other Provinces have language laws like Quebec.  English is not preferred to French in any province in the same way as French is preferred to English in Quebec.  That is why I said you were slow on the uptake.

And the Quebec law is not consistent with Federal law which requires equal access to both languages within reason. IE in the Federal Legislation one language is not preferred over the other.

So I should have gone by what you meant to say, and not what you actually said.  Right...

Quebec law does not need to be consistent with Federal law.  That's basic division of powers.   The Feds only mandate language rights for things under federal jurisdiction (like airlines).

[Oexmelin]

English is not preferred to French in any province in the same way as French is preferred to English in Quebec.  That is why I said you were slow on the uptake.

Not anymore: most provincial language policies outside Quebec were enacted in the 19th century, targetting schools and services (Manitoba, NW Territories, Ontario). Now that the job of ensuring a self-replicating majority of English speakers is done, provinces can feel free to enact all sorts of token encouragement policies for French-as-a-second-language, something qualitatively different than ensuring one can live one's life in French-as-a-first-language. The main exception being New Brunswick - and not out of benevolence. The struggle there was fierce. It leaves scars. Something you all seem to be forgetting: laws and policies do not form out of a vacuum.

Ugh. I feel we have had the same conversations ten times already.

[Ideologue]

Didn't you watch a stupid man plummet to his death?

Anyway, the Martian ruling is fucked up.  Canada's racist.

I didn't actually see that. I knew of it, of course.

You should pretend you were actually there.

[Oexmelin]

The language laws in Quebec serve the opposite function: to enhance the language rights of the french-speaking majority at the expense of the minority.

Not again.

I have, time and again, asked you to explain how the language laws in Quebec violate "the minority's rights".

"The minority" school rights are protected. "The minority" whose rights are infringed, in this case, is the right of everyone who does not qualify for English schooling. Just like, in many jurisdiction, people who do not qualify for residency in one school board do not get to pick which school they send their kids to. Again, you might, like the Tea Partiers, deem this to be an intolerable infringement upon your personal freedom. You still have private schools, if you so desire.

The other "rights" infringed upon are the rights to chose the size of fonts, the right to omit a French version of the exact same advertizing. In this case, "the minority" are corporations or business owners. Having such requirements might be bad business policy, as you take pleasure in reminding us all the time, but I would be hard pressed to call that "oppression".

[Malthus]

Not anymore: most provincial language policies outside Quebec were enacted in the 19th century, targetting schools and services (Manitoba, NW Territories, Ontario). Now that the job of ensuring a self-replicating majority of English speakers is done, provinces can feel free to enact all sorts of token encouragement policies for French-as-a-second-language, something qualitatively different than ensuring one can live one's life in French-as-a-first-language. The main exception being New Brunswick - and not out of benevolence. The struggle there was fierce. It leaves scars. Something you all seem to be forgetting: laws and policies do not form out of a vacuum.

Ugh. I feel we have had the same conversations ten times already.

You are assuming a consitency among provincial legislators that does not exist. Which is more likely: a centuries-long government conspiracy to suppress French and hide itself with self-serving hypocracy of tokenism; or that attitudes towards things like minority rights have simply changed in the western world and in Canada, leading governments to abandon the old Anglo-superiority you seem to assume motivates them?

Your story requires people in the ROC to care about language as much as you do - while mysteriously ceasing to care about stuff like "white only" and "no Jews allowed" (things they cared about until the 1950s in places like Ontario). What relevance do these old struggles to preserve Anglo-ism have, when something like half of Toronto's population are immigrants?

It isn't credible.

[Ideologue]

I have Anglo superiority.

[Malthus]

The language laws in Quebec serve the opposite function: to enhance the language rights of the french-speaking majority at the expense of the minority.

Not again.

I have, time and again, asked you to explain how the language laws in Quebec violate "the minority's rights".

"The minority" school rights are protected. "The minority" whose rights are infringed, in this case, is the right of everyone who does not qualify for English schooling. Just like, in many jurisdiction, people who do not qualify for residency in one school board do not get to pick which school they send their kids to. Again, you might, like the Tea Partiers, deem this to be an intolerable infringement upon your personal freedom. You still have private schools, if you so desire.

The other "rights" infringed upon are the rights to chose the size of fonts, the right to omit a French version of the exact same advertizing. In this case, "the minority" are corporations or business owners. Having such requirements might be bad business policy, as you take pleasure in reminding us all the time, but I would be hard pressed to call that "oppression".

It obviously and on its face violates the minorities' rights to legally force them to use the majorities' language "markedly more predominantly" than their own on their business's signs - it is intended as a symbolic act of superiority by the majority over the minority. That's expressly what it is for. See section 58 of the Charter of the French Language.

A similar act directed against the francophone minority in the ROC would have Quebecers up in arms over oppression - and rightly.

Roll your eyes all you want - you know it is true.

[Barrister]

The language laws in Quebec serve the opposite function: to enhance the language rights of the french-speaking majority at the expense of the minority.

Not again.

I have, time and again, asked you to explain how the language laws in Quebec violate "the minority's rights".

"The minority" school rights are protected. "The minority" whose rights are infringed, in this case, is the right of everyone who does not qualify for English schooling. Just like, in many jurisdiction, people who do not qualify for residency in one school board do not get to pick which school they send their kids to. Again, you might, like the Tea Partiers, deem this to be an intolerable infringement upon your personal freedom. You still have private schools, if you so desire.

The other "rights" infringed upon are the rights to chose the size of fonts, the right to omit a French version of the exact same advertizing. In this case, "the minority" are corporations or business owners. Having such requirements might be bad business policy, as you take pleasure in reminding us all the time, but I would be hard pressed to call that "oppression".

I'm fine with French language law as it stands.  I think there are some issues surrounding English language education, but that's tinkering. 

[Oexmelin]

You are assuming a consitency among provincial legislators that does not exist. Which is more likely: a centuries-long government conspiracy to suppress French and hide itself with self-serving hypocracy of tokenism; or that attitudes towards things like minority rights have simply changed in the western world and in Canada, leading governments to abandon the old Anglo-superiority you seem to assume motivates them?

You read conspiracy where there was none. I know enough of history to avoid making such claims.

Of course attitudes have changed - for all sorts of reasons, sometimes having little to Quebec itself. My point is simply that when French was politically and culturally threatening, provincial legislature took steps to prevent its spread or replications. Now, attitudes are, of course, different. French is celebrated - or often reviled - for symbolic reasons, because there is little social or cultural cost. There will never be a second French speaking province, or bilingual province. English Canada is its own assimilating machine. Now, one can celebrate French, just like one can celebrate Cantoneese or Urdu, with a sprinkling more of "canadianness" on top, acknowledging the French past (rarely the present, never the future) of Canada. This is why I called it "token". Because when there is a political, or even economic cost, you see frictions arising, and symbolism gets thrown out of the window as "mere symbolism". 

[crazy canuck]

So I should have gone by what you meant to say, and not what you actually said.  Right...

No I am quite happy for you to go by what I say within the context in which I say it.

[Malthus]

You read conspiracy where there was none. I know enough of history to avoid making such claims.

Of course attitudes have changed - for all sorts of reasons, sometimes having little to Quebec itself. My point is simply that when French was politically and culturally threatening, provincial legislature took steps to prevent its spread or replications. Now, attitudes are, of course, different. French is celebrated - or often reviled - for symbolic reasons, because there is little social or cultural cost. There will never be a second French speaking province, or bilingual province. English Canada is its own assimilating machine. Now, one can celebrate French, just like one can celebrate Cantoneese or Urdu, with a sprinkling more of "canadianness" on top, acknowledging the French past (rarely the present, never the future) of Canada. This is why I called it "token". Because when there is a political, or even economic cost, you see frictions arising, and symbolism gets thrown out of the window as "mere symbolism".

Intentionality is the natural reading of this:

Now that the job of ensuring a self-replicating majority of English speakers is done, provinces can feel free to enact all sorts of token encouragement policies for French-as-a-second-language, something qualitatively different than ensuring one can live one's life in French-as-a-first-language.

You are incorrect that there is no cost or risk to current multicultural policies. True, there will never be another French province. But the racial and ethnic composition of places like Toronto is changing very rapidly and this has very risky conseqences - embrasing this is actually quite bold. The Cantonese you describe as marginal isn't so small an issue if you live, say, in Vancouver. Or downtown Toronto.

No-one here cares much about the 19th century problems, because we are dealing with quite different 21st century problems.

[Barrister]

You are assuming a consitency among provincial legislators that does not exist. Which is more likely: a centuries-long government conspiracy to suppress French and hide itself with self-serving hypocracy of tokenism; or that attitudes towards things like minority rights have simply changed in the western world and in Canada, leading governments to abandon the old Anglo-superiority you seem to assume motivates them?

You read conspiracy where there was none. I know enough of history to avoid making such claims.

Of course attitudes have changed - for all sorts of reasons, sometimes having little to Quebec itself. My point is simply that when French was politically and culturally threatening, provincial legislature took steps to prevent its spread or replications. Now, attitudes are, of course, different. French is celebrated - or often reviled - for symbolic reasons, because there is little social or cultural cost. There will never be a second French speaking province, or bilingual province. English Canada is its own assimilating machine. Now, one can celebrate French, just like one can celebrate Cantoneese or Urdu, with a sprinkling more of "canadianness" on top, acknowledging the French past (rarely the present, never the future) of Canada. This is why I called it "token". Because when there is a political, or even economic cost, you see frictions arising, and symbolism gets thrown out of the window as "mere symbolism".

Oex, now you're not being fair.

French language is treated very differently from Cantonese or Urdu.  You can not get a Cantonese trial.  Your children are not entitled to a Cantonese-language education.  You do not get government services in Cantonese.

Certainly there will never be another French speaking province, but that has been true for over a hundred years.  Immigration patterns in Western Canada always made it extremely unlikely that there would be a French speaking population.