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

[Malthus]

Heh, what happened to the "but of course they will all learn English anyway so what's the problem?' Valmy that was on such conspicuous display a few pages ago? 

That was in response to something specific that Oex said.  And the observation that in Quebec they do indeed learn English.  Or seem to.  I was not being theoretical.

But for fucksake Malthus if Quebec did not exist we would not ship over a bunch of Francophones and invent it.  It is there so we have to deal with the reality the best we can.  We are not going to artificially create a German speaking state in the US because that would just make things more difficult.  But if there were a German state, well you work with it.

You are missing my point. I'm not asking to deliberately ship in Chinese-speakers. What I'm saying is that, if in some future world Chinese became the international language of commerce and science, and a significant portion of Chinese-speakers were Canadian citizens, and they thought it was to their advantage to be educated in Chinese, why not deal with that reality - rather than tearing our hair out and "oh noes, we must protect the primacy of English at all costs!!!!!oneone"

[Neil]

You would have to ask those who forbid French education in the US and Canada.

Hey you can get a French education in the US if you want to pay for it.

After the civil war in Louisiana, French education was forbidden.  Many states of New England also forbid French education after the influx of French Canadian immigrants.
The situation has been reversed since then, and there are of course private schools, but I think some public schools offer French immersion too.

Once again, over a hundred years ago.  Can you at least snivel like a bitch about more contemporary issues?

[Valmy]

You are missing my point. I'm not asking to deliberately ship in Chinese-speakers. What I'm saying is that, if in some future world Chinese became the international language of commerce and science, and a significant portion of Chinese-speakers were Canadian citizens, and they thought it was to their advantage to be educated in Chinese, why not deal with that reality - rather than tearing our hair out and "oh noes, we must protect the primacy of English at all costs!!!!!oneone"

That doesn't sound like your point at all

Sure if Canada decides it is good policy and a good idea to teach these people in Chinese and does so then great.  But that is different than offering them Chinese education simply because they should get it because they have a right to it.

[crazy canuck]

So your argument depends on it costing significantly more resources to teach a child in one language over another. Seems a weak reed.

Moreover, my argument only requires such teaching if a sizable portion of people want it, so as to make it a viable proposition. Is there a significant demand for primary teaching in other languages? Or do parents there in fact prefer English as a primary language of instruction for practical reasons, making the debate somewhat moot?

No, my argument is that the allocation of resources is a political decision to be made by each of the Provinces.  You try to get around your problem by suggesting that the people who speak other languages dont actually want to be taught in those other languages.  But that avoids the real question - should the government be legally required to provide such services IF they did.

I see no compelling reason to require the government to do so. 

[The Minsky Moment]

It addresses your original position, and that of others such as Minsky and Valmy, that payment out of government funds for minority language education is not any sort of "right",  provincial governments ought to be able to direct educational spending as they see fit, and it is not possible to determine what constitutes a sufficiently large minority group. Of course it's a "right", not only are such "rights" commonplace, they are imbedded in our constitution.

but this confuses two different notions of "right"

A Canadian who is the member of a particular linguistic minority has the right to obtain payment out of government funds for their minority language education because the organic law so provides.  That is just simple application of the rule of law.

You raised the separate question of whether outside of this positive legislative enactment, there is some fundamental human right to receive a free public education in the language of one's choosing (at least one some sort of unspecified population threshold is reached).  I don't think there is, and I don't think a credible argument can be made in favor of that proposition.

You then point out that such a position would not be acceptable to the "Quebec contigent" ("QC").  Of course that is not a problem for me, not being a member.  But even here, I am not sure that applies, at least for all.  I will let them state their own positions if they wish.  But it seems to me that they could consistently take the position that while the right to obtain a French education in national Canada is not a fundamental human right in the natural right sense, it is a communal right the violation of which undoes Canada's pact of union (and hence the legitimacy of any federal enactment that purports to affect Quebec).  That is because the Canadian federal constitution appears explicitly to be a union of provinces (and not peoples) and the constitutional provisions at issue are critical components of the political bargain that undergirds that union. 

[crazy canuck]

It addresses your original position, and that of others such as Minsky and Valmy, that payment out of government funds for minority language education is not any sort of "right",  provincial governments ought to be able to direct educational spending as they see fit, and it is not possible to determine what constitutes a sufficiently large minority group. Of course it's a "right", not only are such "rights" commonplace, they are imbedded in our constitution.

but this confuses two different notions of "right"

A Canadian who is the member of a particular linguistic minority has the right to obtain payment out of government funds for their minority language education because the organic law so provides.  That is just simple application of the rule of law.

You raised the separate question of whether outside of this positive legislative enactment, there is some fundamental human right to receive a free public education in the language of one's choosing (at least one some sort of unspecified population threshold is reached).  I don't think there is, and I don't think a credible argument can be made in favor of that proposition.

You then point out that such a position would not be acceptable to the "Quebec contigent" ("QC").  Of course that is not a problem for me, not being a member.  But even here, I am not sure that applies, at least for all.  I will let them state their own positions if they wish.  But it seems to me that they could consistently take the position that while the right to obtain a French education in national Canada is not a fundamental human right in the natural right sense, it is a communal right the violation of which undoes Canada's pact of union (and hence the legitimacy of any federal enactment that purports to affect Quebec).  That is because the Canadian federal constitution appears explicitly to be a union of provinces (and not peoples) and the constitutional provisions at issue are critical components of the political bargain that undergirds that union.

I think we get to the core of Malthus' argument on rights when he talks about the government being required to provide education in languages other then French and English if a there is large number (but still a minority) who want it.

Malthus is the antiGrallon.  While Grallon would cut away all minority rights while Malthus would impose obligations on government simply because the minority wanted it.

[The Minsky Moment]

You are missing my point. I'm not asking to deliberately ship in Chinese-speakers. What I'm saying is that, if in some future world Chinese became the international language of commerce and science, and a significant portion of Chinese-speakers were Canadian citizens, and they thought it was to their advantage to be educated in Chinese, why not deal with that reality - rather than tearing our hair out and "oh noes, we must protect the primacy of English at all costs!!!!!oneone"

You have a point, but that is a political argument about priorities (expediency).

I agree that there are aspects of Quebec's language policy that seem counterproductive and self-defeating from the POV of seeking to create a modern, economically vibrant society, but that is just my opinion as an outsider.  It is up to the people of the province to make those decisions based on their values, not mine.  Societies make these kinds of trade-offs all the time, like with historical preservation laws, environmental reserves and the like.

[Malthus]

So your argument depends on it costing significantly more resources to teach a child in one language over another. Seems a weak reed.

Moreover, my argument only requires such teaching if a sizable portion of people want it, so as to make it a viable proposition. Is there a significant demand for primary teaching in other languages? Or do parents there in fact prefer English as a primary language of instruction for practical reasons, making the debate somewhat moot?

No, my argument is that the allocation of resources is a political decision to be made by each of the Provinces.  You try to get around your problem by suggesting that the people who speak other languages dont actually want to be taught in those other languages.  But that avoids the real question - should the government be legally required to provide such services IF they did.

I see no compelling reason to require the government to do so.

I do - that people have a right to decide matters fundamental to their identity for themselves.

[crazy canuck]

See now you are retreating to the language of rights.  But on what basis are you grounding that "right". 

[Malthus]

It addresses your original position, and that of others such as Minsky and Valmy, that payment out of government funds for minority language education is not any sort of "right",  provincial governments ought to be able to direct educational spending as they see fit, and it is not possible to determine what constitutes a sufficiently large minority group. Of course it's a "right", not only are such "rights" commonplace, they are imbedded in our constitution.

but this confuses two different notions of "right"

A Canadian who is the member of a particular linguistic minority has the right to obtain payment out of government funds for their minority language education because the organic law so provides.  That is just simple application of the rule of law.

You raised the separate question of whether outside of this positive legislative enactment, there is some fundamental human right to receive a free public education in the language of one's choosing (at least one some sort of unspecified population threshold is reached).  I don't think there is, and I don't think a credible argument can be made in favor of that proposition.

No, I'm saying that linguisic rights exist and are recognized, and that the "rule of law" was drafted up as an expression of that right. However, it was drafted poorly, for reasons I have outlined. If I was confusing the notion of "right" as you say, I would have no basis for criticising the existing legislation.

You then point out that such a position would not be acceptable to the "Quebec contigent" ("QC").  Of course that is not a problem for me, not being a member.  But even here, I am not sure that applies, at least for all.  I will let them state their own positions if they wish.  But it seems to me that they could consistently take the position that while the right to obtain a French education in national Canada is not a fundamental human right in the natural right sense, it is a communal right the violation of which undoes Canada's pact of union (and hence the legitimacy of any federal enactment that purports to affect Quebec).  That is because the Canadian federal constitution appears explicitly to be a union of provinces (and not peoples) and the constitutional provisions at issue are critical components of the political bargain that undergirds that union.

However, the basis of Canada's union is of peoples as well as provinces. That's why the "right" to French is extended throughout the country and not just in Quebec. So, your analysis is flawed from the start.

[Malthus]

See now you are retreating to the language of rights.  But on what basis are you grounding that "right".

I've already answered that above: from legal sources from various traditions, from international definitions and instruments, and from philosophical notions of what constitutes a "right". In fact, I've asked others how *they* define "rights", and so far, without an answer - merely argument by assertion, as in Minsky's " I don't think there is, and I don't think a credible argument can be made in favor of that proposition."

I believe that parents who are citizens have the "right" to determine, in broad outlines, the course of the education of their children, and that if a sizable number of parents believe that a certain course in in their kids best interests, and they can demonstrate that this is objectively true, they should be allowed to so direct public authorities to provide - such as providing them with education in the language that they want.

You ask for sources? I've already demonstrated how this concept is built into the Canadian Constitution - albeit imperfectly. However, if yoiu wish to dig deeper, please examine the UN universal declaration of human rights:

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Then, we can examine the documents considering linguistic rights - that is, if you are interested.

[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.

Likewise if you do not want your kid to be taught creationism, intelligent design, that Christianity is the foundation of American and human liberty, laissez faire Capitalism is the proven and infallible way to increase jobs and prosperity then do not send your kids to Texas public schools.

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.

No, I'm not suggesting that no on can complain about government policies that they don't agree with.  I'm questioning why someone who strongly disagrees with the public policies enacted within a certain political entity would voluntarily immigrate to such an entity, and if for some reason that immigrate there anyway, why the public policies should be modified to address their objections--assuming that the policies in question do not violate fundamental human rights (and I agree with Minsky that an immigrant has no fundamental human right to have his children educated in his native language).

And yes, I'm serious about that.

[Malthus]

No, I'm not suggesting that no on can complain about government policies that they don't agree with.  I'm questioning why someone who strongly disagrees with the public policies enacted within a certain political entity would voluntarily immigrate to such an entity, and if for some reason that immigrate there anyway, why the public policies should be modified to address their objections--assuming that the policies in question do not violate fundamental human rights (and I agree with Minsky that an immigrant has no fundamental human right to have his children educated in his native language).

And yes, I'm serious about that.

Perhaps that person generally agrees with every other aspect of their chosen country, and only disagrees with that one aspect? Perhaps, on balance, the good outweighs the bad - but, like any other human on the planet, they wish to make good even better, by changing things they dislike?

Perhaps because, in a democracy, it makes no sense to provide lesser rights to citizens who are recent immigrants, or consider them somehow second class, stripping them of any legitimate right to complain about aspects of their country's policies that they disagree with on the basis of "well, if you felt that way, shouldn't have come"? 

In effect, I'm advicating treating all citizens alike, whether they are immigrants or not. I fail to see what is so disagreeable about that.

[dps]

No, I'm not suggesting that no on can complain about government policies that they don't agree with.  I'm questioning why someone who strongly disagrees with the public policies enacted within a certain political entity would voluntarily immigrate to such an entity, and if for some reason that immigrate there anyway, why the public policies should be modified to address their objections--assuming that the policies in question do not violate fundamental human rights (and I agree with Minsky that an immigrant has no fundamental human right to have his children educated in his native language).

And yes, I'm serious about that.

Perhaps that person generally agrees with every other aspect of their chosen country, and only disagrees with that one aspect? Perhaps, on balance, the good outweighs the bad - but, like any other human on the planet, they wish to make good even better, by changing things they dislike?

Perhaps because, in a democracy, it makes no sense to provide lesser rights to citizens who are recent immigrants, or consider them somehow second class, stripping them of any legitimate right to complain about aspects of their country's policies that they disagree with on the basis of "well, if you felt that way, shouldn't have come"? 

In effect, I'm advicating treating all citizens alike, whether they are immigrants or not. I fail to see what is so disagreeable about that.

Again, I didn't say that they couldn't complain. 

And as for treating all citizens alike, well if all instruction in the public schools is in one particular language, then they are all being treated alike.  It seems to me that you are in effect arguing for special treatment for immigrants, not equality.

[crazy canuck]

Malthus, you are interpreting the UN declaration giving parent a "prior right" to choose "the kind" of education given to their children as the ability to force governments to provide a certain type of education and particularly a requirement that the government fund education in language choosen by the parent.  With respect your interpretation is not very compelling.

That is even more broad than your original contention that if there is a) a signficant minority and b) they want to be taught in their own language then that ought to be funding.  By your interpretation of the UN declaration anyone can choose a language of instruction.  And not only the language.  Surely if "kind of education" means choice of language it also means choice of curriculum.  Under your model the state would have to find individual learning programs for each student according to the wishes of each parent.

That interpretation is simply untenable.

A more reasonable interpretation is that parents may choose which school their kids will attend.  Which is exactly what happens In Quebec.

I think you have run out of ground on this one.