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

[Valmy]

Well look to our constitution.  They have the right to French government services, the right to French language schools (and in many provinces, the right to Catholic schools).

As for Natives - well it has allowed them to survive as a separate and identifiable people and culture, which is something imoprtant to them.

Everybody has a right to French in government services and French language schools.  Everybody also has a right to English in Government services and English language schools.  The Quebecois just usually pick the former.

[Malthus]

Examples of "collective rights"?  Well this one - to take steps to preserve a language or culture.  I disagree with Valmy that's the right of the majority - it's usually held to be the right of the minority.  Like Quebecois within Canada, or of our first nations.

What rights do the Quebecois enjoy that nobody else does?  It strikes me they are exactly the same.

But in any case it is not a completely absolute evil, collective rights, it is an idea that is well intentioned but which generally, IMO, produces very bad results.  But not always.

I am not just super sure Canadian and American policy towards the Native Americans, giving them special status, has just been a whopping success either...but it is sure better than the way these things have tended to play out in the old world.

Well look to our constitution.  They have the right to French government services, the right to French language schools (and in many provinces, the right to Catholic schools).

As for Natives - well it has allowed them to survive as a separate and identifiable people and culture, which is something imoprtant to them.

This just proves the foolishness of attempting to scribe in constitutional stone a snapshot of the population as it existed at the time of confederation.

For example, take the funding of religious schools in Ontario. Is there any really sensible reason why Catholic schools are fully funded, but (say) Jewish or Muslim schools are not? Why are Catholics considered more worthy of state support?

I understand the historical reasons why this is so, but it makes no frigging sense in the present day. A Jew or a muslim is a taxpayer and a citizen just like a Catholic. Either all religious schools should be funded (based on some eligibility criteria) or none should be.

[Razgovory]

Yes of course...  An English speaking Quebecer is forced to *gasp* put a sign in French, this is horrible discrimination.  Trying to erase the French identity of this country however is "petty".
It's like all those Jews complaining about anti-semitism, what with burnt Synagogues and vandalized cemeteraries.  Their grievances are petty or missstated.

Are you serious?  Really, are you serious?

[Barrister]

Well look to our constitution.  They have the right to French government services, the right to French language schools (and in many provinces, the right to Catholic schools).

As for Natives - well it has allowed them to survive as a separate and identifiable people and culture, which is something imoprtant to them.

Everybody has a right to French in government services and French language schools.  Everybody also has a right to English in Government services and English language schools.  The Quebecois just usually pick the former.

If it was an individual right, it would be the right to those services in your own language.

Instead, English and French speakers are given special rights.

[Valmy]

If it was an individual right, it would be the right to those services in your own language.

Instead, English and French speakers are given special rights.

"English and French speakers" are not a collective.  They are individuals who speak one of the official languages.  Anybody can get access to that stuff, you just need to learn a skill.  But you certainly do not need to be 'Quebecois' or be part of some other group.

[viper37]

For example, take the funding of religious schools in Ontario. Is there any really sensible reason why Catholic schools are fully funded, but (say) Jewish or Muslim schools are not? Why are Catholics considered more worthy of state support?

They are publicly funded, so long as they teach the province's curriculum.

I understand the historical reasons why this is so, but it makes no frigging sense in the present day. A Jew or a muslim is a taxpayer and a citizen just like a Catholic. Either all religious schools should be funded (based on some eligibility criteria) or none should be.

In Quebec, public schools are no longer seperated on a religious basis, only language basis.
Muslim and Jewish schools can receive funding, even if they are private (60% public funding for all private schools), though they have to abide by the basics of the Education Department.  That means no creationism, and no "preparation to be a good wife" stuff.

[dps]

Because you're a borderline librarytarian, of course.  I didn't mean my response to be overly snarky.  I would have utterly expected your response.

Examples of "collective rights"?  Well this one - to take steps to preserve a language or culture.  I disagree with Valmy that's the right of the majority - it's usually held to be the right of the minority.  Like Quebecois within Canada, or of our first nations.

I tend to agree with Valmy and Berkut on this issue--collective rights, while not necessarily pernicious in theory, in practice are almost always exercised or invoked in opposition to individual rights.  It would seem that Berkut is more opposed to the concept than I am, and Valmy is less opposed than I, but fundamentally I believe we are in agreement.  Is it because all 3 of us are "borderline librarytarian"s?  There are certainly differences among the 3 of us on other issues.

[Neil]

Sounds like a invention to me, and one largely designed to justify ignoring actual rights in favor of collective control.

Are 'acutal' rights any less of an invention?

[Razgovory]

Because you're a borderline librarytarian, of course.  I didn't mean my response to be overly snarky.  I would have utterly expected your response.

Examples of "collective rights"?  Well this one - to take steps to preserve a language or culture.  I disagree with Valmy that's the right of the majority - it's usually held to be the right of the minority.  Like Quebecois within Canada, or of our first nations.

I tend to agree with Valmy and Berkut on this issue--collective rights, while not necessarily pernicious in theory, in practice are almost always exercised or invoked in opposition to individual rights.  It would seem that Berkut is more opposed to the concept than I am, and Valmy is less opposed than I, but fundamentally I believe we are in agreement.  Is it because all 3 of us are "borderline librarytarian"s?  There are certainly differences among the 3 of us on other issues.

I'm kinda with you guys on this one.  Not as strong as Berkut, but collective rights and by extension collective punishment is not the best way to handle things.  There are exceptions of course, as with anything.

[Grallon]

Are 'acutal' rights any less of an invention?

Of course they are since they're nothing but the end result of a convention agreed upon by a majority.  There are no such things are ''inalienable rights".  Any right can be alienated if there's a social consensus to do so.

Similarly if a consensus is reached by a majority about 'collective rights' - then those rights become reality.  Such a consensus was reached in Quebec about the protection of the French language and the end result was Bill 101.  And this confirms the mild impositions that law represent for the members of the Anglo minority have more to do with 'bruised egos' than any actual 'oppression'. *sneers*




G.

[Berkut]

And this confirms the mild impositions that law represent for the members of the Anglo minority have more to do with 'bruised egos' than any actual 'oppression'. *sneers*

Oddly enough, to those of us without a dog in the fight, it is the consensus that the exaggeration of "oppression" and whiny bruised egos is on the part of the Francophones. Most of the Anglophiles don't really seem to care until some bruised ego starts demanding half a million because his stewardess doesn't know how to say "7-Up" in French.

[Neil]

Of course they are since they're nothing but the end result of a convention agreed upon by a majority.  There are no such things are ''inalienable rights".  Any right can be alienated if there's a social consensus to do so.

Similarly if a consensus is reached by a majority about 'collective rights' - then those rights become reality.  Such a consensus was reached in Quebec about the protection of the French language and the end result was Bill 101.  And this confirms the mild impositions that law represent for the members of the Anglo minority have more to do with 'bruised egos' than any actual 'oppression'. *sneers*

I don't know.  It seems to me that if Quebec isn't willing to pay for things themselves, they should subordinate themselves to the Anglos who are gracious enough to help them.  The behavior of Quebecois separatists is childish, because on the one hand they beg English Canada for money, and on the other hand sneer at them.  They're the equivalent of British yobs.

[Neil]

And this confirms the mild impositions that law represent for the members of the Anglo minority have more to do with 'bruised egos' than any actual 'oppression'. *sneers*

Oddly enough, to those of us without a dog in the fight, it is the consensus that the exaggeration of "oppression" and whiny bruised egos is on the part of the Francophones. Most of the Anglophiles don't really seem to care until some bruised ego starts demanding half a million because his stewardess doesn't know how to say "7-Up" in French.

7-Up in french is still 'Seven-Up'.

[crazy canuck]

Sounds like a invention to me, and one largely designed to justify ignoring actual rights in favor of collective control.

Are 'acutal' rights any less of an invention?

I suppose there may still be some that believe in the classical liberal notion of Man's natural state - despite all the evidence to the contrary.

[Grallon]

I don't know.  It seems to me that if Quebec isn't willing to pay for things themselves, they should subordinate themselves to the Anglos who are gracious enough to help them.  The behavior of Quebecois separatists is childish, because on the one hand they beg English Canada for money, and on the other hand sneer at them.  They're the equivalent of British yobs.

You over emphasize the value of 'oil sands' money.  One could just as easily contend that French Canada, because it was at some point more populous than any other territories attached to British North America, payed to develop what has become since the western provinces.  Then this would devolve into a lawyer/accountant debate (as if it never do so...) about who payed more or less and consequently whose rights have more weight than those of others.

I am not interested in a balance sheet debate.

Through political sponsorship and immigration English Canada has become more populous than Quebec.  Naturally the dominant paradigm here has shifted according to the numbers.



G.