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

[Neil]

Let's say an alien scientist was observing Earth and the Canadian air force detected him and shot him down and he sued, would his/her/it's case really be dismissed on that reasoning?

Of course.  How could it not?

[crazy canuck]

Heh, bringing the thread back on topic.   Its the Royal Canadian Airforce you git.

[jimmy olsen]

Let's say an alien scientist was observing Earth and the Canadian air force detected him and shot him down and he sued, would his/her/it's case really be dismissed on that reasoning?

Of course.  How could it not?

While there are certainly valid reasons to dismiss his claims, not being human should not be one of them.

[viper37]

Google translate is quite good.

Much better, indeed, than many Federal government employees... 

It's the reason why the Federal government made cuts to the translation office (or whatever it's called)

[viper37]

merde

reserved for French expatriate lost in the cold, bitter winters of Montreal
Or for people working at Société Radio-Canada (French CBC)

[Ideologue]

Do French people ever really say "Sacre bleu"?

[viper37]

The successes of second language French in Canada... 

Well, it is the second language, but English is the language of government, culture, business, sports, technology, the media and in fact civilization.

It makes sense since the French have no word for culture...

[Neil]

Let's say an alien scientist was observing Earth and the Canadian air force detected him and shot him down and he sued, would his/her/it's case really be dismissed on that reasoning?

Of course.  How could it not?

While there are certainly valid reasons to dismiss his claims, not being human should not be one of them.

Non-humans shouldn't be people.  We'll add to the list as neccessary.

[grumbler]

While there are certainly valid reasons to dismiss his claims, not being human should not be one of them.

That's not the reason, as a simple re-reading of the relevant posts would show you.

Corporations are not human, and yet can sue.  Why?  I'll leave that to you to go back and discover.

[Drakken]

Do French people ever really say "Sacre bleu"?

We say "Sacrement" quite often, usually when pissed, but that's a Quebec thing.

[grumbler]

Non-humans shouldn't be people.  We'll add to the list as neccessary.

While non-humans maybe "shouldn't" be persons, they sometimes are.  For instance, corporations are legal persons and can undertake contracts, sue, and be sued.

[Malthus]

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.

Ah. I didn't realize the right to commercially advertize in English (or Urdu) only constituted such a crucial rampart against tyranny.

The symbolism of the Charter of the French Language was in making French visible - "normal and usual", in the language of the Charter - not qualitatively superior.

No-one is claiming jackbooded thugs levels of oppression. But the language laws are clear and obvious examples of a majority group requiring superiority over minority groups by legal coersion, and so is the evidence that you demanded of me.

I contest that the laws do not require (for example) signs to be "qualitatively superior". On their face, they clearly do. For example:

http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/dynamicSearch/telecharge.php?type=2&file=/C_11/C11_A.html

58. Public signs and posters and commercial advertising must be in French.

They may also be both in French and in another language provided that French is markedly predominant.

Why the requirement that French be "markedly predominant", rather than (say) equal? It's an assertion of superiority.

[HVC]

Why must you attribute malice. Maybe quebecers are just prone to near-sightedness. Ever consider that?

[Oexmelin]

Because it relates to commercial advertizing, I would argue it is about visibility. No one is saying French is "better". Only, that it needs to be more visible.

In that case, I would also therefore argue that the vexation this might constitute is not commensurate with the sort of outrage it generates. A comparison of the treatment of those two parallel "outrages" generate - the 7-up guy and the Alliance Quebec guys - is enlightening.

And, once again, we meet a fundamental disagreement, which goes beyond the Quebec issue. You hold that legal provisions, however limited in their potential scope and application, constitute a greater measure of coercion than social or economic pressures - presumably because the latter can be construed as voluntary, whereas the former can not. I do not agree. This is a philosophical divergence that will probably not be bridged.

[Malthus]

Because it relates to commercial advertizing, I would argue it is about visibility. No one is saying French is "better". Only, that it needs to be more visible.

I'd love to see the reaction in Quebec if Ontario passed a law stating "you must use English on your signs. You can use French, but it has to be less visible". 

In that case, I would also therefore argue that the vexation this might constitute is not commensurate with the sort of outrage it generates. A comparison of the treatment of those two parallel "outrages" generate - the 7-up guy and the Alliance Quebec guys - is enlightening.

Yes, do compare them.

On the one hand, a lone individual suing a company for an absurd amount of money over being unable to order a soft drink in the language of his choice. Not, mind you, that he was actually inconveninced or humiliated in any way.

On the other, a law that applies to every commercial expression in the province, and which effectively makes it impossible to simply import out-of-province materials for use in the province, unless they are unilingual French (everywhere else in the world materials are bilingual or trilingual - no-one, except for Quebec, makes one language "markedly more predominant").

And, once again, we meet a fundamental disagreement, which goes beyond the Quebec issue. You hold that legal provisions, however limited in their potential scope and application, constitute a greater measure of coercion than social or economic pressures - presumably because the latter can be construed as voluntary, whereas the former can not. I do not agree. This is a philosophical divergence that will probably not be bridged.

Perhaps not. But on the other hand, I dispute that a law that applies to all advertising and signage in a province is such a minor thing - indeed, yesterday I had very convincing proof of it, as I was at a meeting in which a major retailer listed Quebec as "last choice" for expansion due to entry costs imposed by these coerceive measures.