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

[viper37]

By that token - what rights of theirs would be violated if the majority in Canada decided to make all education compulsory in English? Not a problem, right? What fundamental right is being violated? That would not be an example of the tyranny of the majority ... ?

it's been done before.  Only when French was no longer a menace to English supremacy were French schools reinstated, with independant school board and sufficient financing.

[viper37]

(as possible example would be stuff like teaching creationism in science class to kids who are not Christian - it would be both against their culture, and actively bad for them. I assume you don't favour that ... ).

Some Jews&Muslims sects believe in creationism too, just like not all Christians believe in creationism.
You can't really split it on a religious grounds.

[The Minsky Moment]

Such a hard life being an anglo in Montreal.

It has been pretty dire since the Expos left.

[Valmy]

Let's correct some misconceptions here ...

Oh good.

1. I never said it was bad to pass on cultural values via education. I said it was bad to pass on cultural values via education, where such values were (a) contrary to the values of those being educated, and (b) contrary to their actual self-interest. There may be examples of this in US education, but you haven't provided any, and if there are, I'm against that too (as possible example would be stuff like teaching creationism in science class to kids who are not Christian - it would be both against their culture, and actively bad for them. I assume you don't favour that ... ).

Well we are bad then because we pass on values wihtout regard to the values of each and every person being educated.  These are our values and we want them passed on.  If somebody doesn't like it: well we have homeschooling and private schools.  If going to our public schools is against your self interest, and frankly it probably often is since our schools are generally sub par, go someplace else.  And while I certainly do NOT support teaching creationism in science class I certainly support the right of the community to teach the values it wants in the schools it pays for.  Because that is simple political sanity.  I have no idea why you feel like everybody is entitled to not only have access to free education but have it tailored to suit whatever they percieve their best interests are or what values they want.  I see no reason why that should be the case much less that it is some sort of violation of justice.  If you do not like Quebec (or Texas or California or whatever) or its schools, homeschool (though Quebec may not let you do that which would suck but I have no idea) or go to a private school.  Or better yet, do not live in a place whose culture and values are perceived to be against your best interests.

2. As for Quebec having the most bilingual folks and its educational system - you are mixing "correlation" and "causation". Quebec has lots of bilingual folks because it has lots of folks there who speak both English and French. This would be true whether the educational system were great or lousy. The reason so much of Canada is not bilinual, is that there is no practical way for those learning French in class to speak it, as there are very few french-speakers on the ground.

Ok then I am confused.  I asked, repeatedly, if Francophone education reduces English skills or if the system is effective at teaching people English.  Nobody has given me a satisfactory answer.  So I foolishly then looked at rates of bilingualism in Canada and hey it is highest among the Francophone population.  Overwhelmingly so.  But if I cannot use actual evidence to back up my points than what do I have?  You have given me nothing besides repeated over and over again the ridiculous and unsupported idea that Francophone education is not only not optimal it is actually counterproductive.  Am I supposed to accept this assertion on faith?

[Malthus]

By that token - what rights of theirs would be violated if the majority in Canada decided to make all education compulsory in English? Not a problem, right? What fundamental right is being violated? That would not be an example of the tyranny of the majority ... ?

If federal Canada wanted to set up national public schools that taught in English, I can't see what fundamental right would be violated in the abstract.  It might violate the Charter or the Canadian Federal Constitution, but I am not familiar enough with those documents to say.

And there is where I think you part ways with the Quebec contingent.

In the context of this debate, arguing that language rights are not "fundamental" in some sort of objective sense is a non-starter, since it is the very basis of Quebec's historic stance.

They cannot have it both ways - they cannot argue that *their* language rights are fundamental, but those of other people are not.

If as an outsider to the situation you simply state that no language rights are fundamental, then presumably there would be no element of "tyranny of the majority" in imposing English-only education on Quebec. Which would lead to political explosions and doubtless the seperation of Quebec, because very obviously people in Quebec *believe* that language rights are fundamental. Ether they are wrong or you are.

[Valmy]

So, in your guy's opinion, no-one can complain about a silly policy like teaching creationism, because, you know, love it or leave it ... ?

I'm not sure whether you seriously believe that, or are joking. Honestly, I'm not.

Of course you can campaign for it and complain about it.  That is called politics.  You are saying that somehow Quebec is violating human rights or doing something morally wrong.  But to me they are doing absolutely nothing different than any American School district I have ever heard of.  As for creationism: well the lost that debate...for the time being.

[Malthus]

Oh good.

Well we are bad then because we pass on values wihtout regard to the values of each and every person being educated.  These are our values and we want them passed on.  If somebody doesn't like it: well we have homeschooling and private schools.  If going to our public schools is against your self interest, and frankly it probably often is since our schools are generally sub par, go someplace else.  And while I certainly do NOT support teaching creationism in science class I certainly support the right of the community to teach the values it wants in the schools it pays for.  Because that is simple political sanity.  I have no idea why you feel like everybody is entitled to not only have access to free education but have it tailored to suit whatever they percieve their best interests are or what values they want.  I see no reason why that should be the case much less that it is some sort of violation of justice.  If you do not like Quebec (or Texas or California or whatever) or its schools, homeschool (though Quebec may not let you do that which would suck but I have no idea) or go to a private school.  Or better yet, do not live in a place whose culture and values are perceived to be against your best interests.

Let me ask you a straight question, with a simple yes or no answer ... if (say) Berkut was to complain about his local school board teaching creationism, is he wrong to do so? Yes, or no?

Ok then I am confused.  I asked, repeatedly, if Francophone education reduces English skills or if the system is effective at teaching people English.  Nobody has given me a satisfactory answer.  So I foolishly then looked at rates of bilingualism in Canada and hey it is highest among the Francophone population.  Overwhelmingly so.  But if I cannot use actual evidence to back up my points than what do I have?  You have given me nothing besides repeated over and over again the ridiculous and unsupported idea that Francophone education is not only not optimal it is actually counterproductive.  Am I supposed to accept this assertion on faith?

I'm not an expert on the Quebec school board(s) and really do not know if they are good or not. I'm not expressing any opinion on that.

I am simply saying that one cannot make such an analysis basede on the number of bilingual folks in the province, because reality is that a province which has lots of french and english speakers in it is going to have a high rate of bilingualism whether the school boards are great or lousy.

I'm not against you using evidence in your arguments, just against using evidence that isn't relevant.

[Malthus]

So, in your guy's opinion, no-one can complain about a silly policy like teaching creationism, because, you know, love it or leave it ... ?

I'm not sure whether you seriously believe that, or are joking. Honestly, I'm not.

Of course you can campaign for it and complain about it.  That is called politics.  You are saying that somehow Quebec is violating human rights.

I believe that it is - the exact same rights that they themselves trumpet: language rights. As I pointed out to Minsky, it is a tough argument to make to support Quebec's majority of the population (albeit minority in Canada) "fundamental language rights", but when it comes to actual individuals, deny that they have any.

Obviously this would not pass a court of law here in Canada, because the very laws were drafted around recognizing Quebec's language rights. So all that is left is argument based on logic, which is what I'm doing.

[The Minsky Moment]

And there is where I think you part ways with the Quebec contingent.

That may be so, I am not part of that contingent.

But  . . . seems to me that they might argue that the constitutional structure of Canada, including the parts that reserve educational powers to the provinces, represents a basic political agreement that cannot be upset without also upsetting the basis of the federal union.  Thus, as a matter of positive law, what you suggest would violate a fundamental constitutional right.  That seems a sound argument to me.  Whether it further represents a violation of basic human rights in a broader sense is a separate question, and on that I might well differ.

[Barrister]

By that token - what rights of theirs would be violated if the majority in Canada decided to make all education compulsory in English? Not a problem, right? What fundamental right is being violated? That would not be an example of the tyranny of the majority ... ?

If federal Canada wanted to set up national public schools that taught in English, I can't see what fundamental right would be violated in the abstract.  It might violate the Charter or the Canadian Federal Constitution, but I am not familiar enough with those documents to say.  (quick check suggests that it would).

It would violate both (education is a provincial power, minority education rights are entrenched in the Charter).

[Malthus]

And there is where I think you part ways with the Quebec contingent.

That may be so, I am not part of that contingent.

But  . . . seems to me that they might argue that the constitutional structure of Canada, including the parts that reserve educational powers to the provinces, represents a basic political agreement that cannot be upset without also upsetting the basis of the federal union.  Thus, as a matter of positive law, what you suggest would violate a fundamental constitutional right.  That seems a sound argument to me.  Whether it further represents a violation of basic human rights in a broader sense is a separate question, and on that I might well differ.

Absolutely it would violate Canada's constitutional settlement - which is of course competely irrelevant. Folks in Quebec would not be outraged that such a move violated the division-of-powers provisions of the BNA or the  The Constitution Act, but by the imposition of English education upon them.

The reason is right there in the preamble to the Quebec Charter of the French Language - that it is language which enables people to "articulate their destiny". Why is (say) choice of religion a fundamental right but not language?

WHEREAS the French language, the distinctive language of a people that is in the majority French-speaking, is the instrument by which that people has articulated its identity;

Whereas the National Assembly of Québec recognizes that Quebecers wish to see the quality and influence of the French language assured, and is resolved therefore to make of French the language of Government and the Law, as well as the normal and everyday language of work, instruction, communication, commerce and business;

[Razgovory]

By that token - what rights of theirs would be violated if the majority in Canada decided to make all education compulsory in English? Not a problem, right? What fundamental right is being violated? That would not be an example of the tyranny of the majority ... ?

it's been done before.  Only when French was no longer a menace to English supremacy were French schools reinstated, with independant school board and sufficient financing.

Was French ever a menace to "English Supremacy"?  I'm not sure your Anglo cousins think like that.

[Valmy]

I believe that it is - the exact same rights that they themselves trumpet: language rights.

Oh.

Well.

I have no idea what language rights are or how they might work in a public policy context.

[Valmy]

Why is (say) choice of religion a fundamental right but not language?

Well the context is important.  If Quebec has police arresting people for speaking or writing in other languages that violates freedom of speech which IS a fundamental right.

But there is no right to government services in the language you want.  You get them in whatever language the government provides them in.

[The Minsky Moment]

Absolutely it would violate Canada's constitutional settlement - which is of course competely irrelevant. Folks in Quebec would not be outraged that such a move violated the division-of-powers provisions of the BNA or the  The Constitution Act, but by the imposition of English education upon them.

The reason is right there in the preamble to the Quebec Charter of the French Language - that it is language which enables people to "articulate their destiny". Why is (say) choice of religion a fundamental right but not language?

So now I am confused - are you taking this position yourself or is this just an attempt to point out an apparent hypocrisy on the part of your opponents?  It seems to me you have the same problem in reverse - you can't simultaneously argue that language is just a tool for communication and at the same time contend that a democratically passed statute providing for free education in a particular language is manifestation of tyranny of the majority.

As an outsider to this dispute, I just start from the basic principle that absent some conflict with fundamental right, democratically elected legislature should be free to enact laws for whatever they deem to be the public good.  I don't see how a law mandating that publicly funded education be provided in a particular language violates any fundamental right, and moreover, it seems reasonably connected with legitimate educational purposes.   Given the constitutional structure of Canada, however, that general line of reasoning wouldn't hold for a nationwide system of schools teaching only English.  And while you could respond that the Canadian constitution just represents a political bargain subject to revision, the response would be that such a revision would call into question the basis of the union itself.