Some people can never be satisfied. He got to wait only 16hrs for his treatment, instead of the average 18hrs, yet he still complains!
Stupid Brits ;)
(it's a funny read btw, and I agree with most of what he says of our health care system)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/jeremy_clarkson/article6814702.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/jeremy_clarkson/article6814702.ece)
Quote
What's the Canadian word for 'lousy care'?
While I was away, there was a big debate about how Barack Obama might sort out America's healthcare system, which, say the critics, is chronically awful and fantastically unfair.
It's also bonkers. I was once denied treatment at a Detroit hospital because the receptionist's computer refused to acknowledge that the United Kingdom existed. Even though I had a wad of cash, and a wallet full of credit cards, she was prepared to let me explode all over her desk because her stupid software only recognised addresses in the United States.
Some say America should follow Canada's lead, where private care is effectively banned. But having experienced their procedures while on holiday in Quebec, I really don't think that's a good idea at all.
A friend's 13-year-old son tripped while climbing off a speedboat and ripped his leg open. Things started well. The ambulance arrived promptly, the wound was bandaged and off he went in a big, exciting van. Now, we are all used to a bit of a wait at the hospital. God knows, I've spent enough time in accident and emergency at Oxford's John Radcliffe over the years, sitting with my sobbing children in a room full of people with swords in their eyes and their feet on back to front. But nothing can prepare you for the yawning chasm of time that passes in Canada before the healthcare system actually does any healthcare.
It didn't seem desperately busy. One woman had lost her face somehow — probably a bear attack — and one kid appeared to have taken rather too much ecstasy, but there were no more than a dozen people in the waiting room. And no one was gouting arterial blood all over the walls.
After a couple of hours, I asked the receptionist how long it might be before a doctor came. In a Wal-Mart, it's quite quaint to be served by a fat, gum-chewing teenager who claims not to understand what you're saying, but in a hospital it's annoying. Resisting the temptation to explain that the Marquis de Montcalm lost and that it's time to get over it, I went back to the boy's cubicle, which he was sharing with a young Muslim couple.
A doctor came in and said to them: "You've had a miscarriage," and then turned to go. Understandably, the poor girl was very upset and asked if the doctor was sure.
"Look, we've done a scan and there's nothing in there," she said, in perhaps the worst example of a bedside manner I've ever seen.
"Is anyone coming to look at my son?" asked my friend politely. "Quoi?" said the haughty doctor, who had suddenly forgotten how to speak English. "Je ne comprends pas." And with that, she was gone.
At midnight, a young man who had been brought up on a diet of American music, American movies and very obviously American food, arrived to say, in French, that the doctors were changing shift and a new one would be along as soon as possible.
By then, it was one in the morning and my legs were becoming weary. This is because the hospital had no chairs for relatives and friends. It's not a lack of funds, plainly. Because they had enough money to paint a yellow line on the road nine yards from the front door, beyond which you were able to smoke.
And they also had the cash to employ an army of people to slam the door in your face if you poked your head into the inner sanctum to ask how much longer the wait might be. Sixteen hours is apparently the norm. Unless you want a scan. Then it's 22 months.
At about 1.30am a doctor arrived. Boy, he was a piece of work. He couldn't have been more rude if I'd been General Wolfe. He removed the bandages like they were the packaging on a disposable razor, looked at the wound, which was horrific, and said to my friend: "Is it cash or credit card?"
This seemed odd in a country with no private care, but it turns out they charge non-Canadians precisely what they would charge the government if the patient were Céline Dion. The bill was C$300 (about £170).
The doctor vanished, but he hadn't bothered to reapply the boy's bandages, which meant the little lad was left with nothing to look at except his own thigh bone. An hour later, the painkillers arrived.
What the doctor was doing in between was going to a desk and sitting down. I watched him do it. He would go into a cubicle, be rude, cause the patient a bit of pain and then sit down again on the hospital's only chair.
Seven hours after the accident, in a country widely touted to be the safest and best in the world, he applied 16 stitches that couldn't have been less neat if he'd done them on a battlefield, with twigs. And then the anaesthetist arrived to wake the boy up. In French. This didn't work, so she went away to sit on the doctor's chair because he was in another cubicle bring rude and causing pain to someone else.
Now, I appreciate that any doctor who ends up working the night shift at a provincial hospital in Nowheresville is unlikely to be at the top of his game, and you can't judge a country's healthcare on his piss-poor performance. And nor should all of Canada be judged on Quebec, which is full of idealistic, language-Nazi lunatics.
But I can say this. If private treatment had been allowed, my friend would have paid for it. He would have received better service and in doing so, allowed Dr Useless to get to the woman with no face or ecstasy boy more quickly. Though I suspect he would have used our absence to spend more time sitting down.
The other thing I can say is that Britain's National Health Service is a monster that we can barely afford. But in all the times I've ever used the big, flawed giant, no one has ever pretended to be French, no one has spent more time swiping my credit card than ordering painkillers and there are many chairs.
Dissastified customers are always a plague.
Oh, btw, it's true what he says about foreigners getting treated here: you'll have to pay before seeing the doc, even if you're bleeding to death. But I disagree about the general 'rudeness' of the staff. It seems common among anglos that when people don't speak english they are automatically "rude".
There's some cultural misconception in there, for sure. The citizens of Quebec are expected to wait patiently until their turn arrives and not ask every 2-3hrs how long it's gonna be 'til they see a doctor. :D
EDIT: sorry for the poor formatting. Just click the link and read the text. Only GF is too lazy to click links anyway :P
Not speaking English is rude, since you know it. And if you don't know it then what the fuck kind of third world person are you?
Sounds horrible. The ER is always a nightmare, though.
Brits, never happy.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 04, 2009, 05:24:57 PM
Brits, never happy.
Really? I always thought of the Brits as rather tolerant of subpar service.
I dunno, it seems here that the doctor did speak English to the people next to them yet when he tried it they mysteriously didn't anymore....now that is rude.
And asking how long you have to wait is totally acceptable in any rational system. Its not a complaint, just a question.
Probally a lot of exageration and typical British moaning but a national uproar just due to this?
QuoteReally? I always thought of the Brits as rather tolerant of subpar service.
A misconception.
Americans have really alien ideas of what 'good service is'. Brits don't want happy smiley people bothering us every 10 minutes to ask if everything is OK.
We just want them to do the job they're paid for and serve us in a timely manner.
American style in your face service is found to be very off putting by many.
More relevant to here of course; we have a positive outlook on life contrary to the negative view of many other countries.
To the British the world is a wonderful, perfect place by default. Hence any deviation there upon must be noted.
Many others though seem to believe the world to be a absolute shit hole by default and any minor improvement on that needs praising to the ends of the earth.
Quote from: citizen k on September 04, 2009, 05:55:05 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 04, 2009, 05:24:57 PM
Brits, never happy.
Really? I always thought of the Brits as rather tolerant of subpar service.
We don't like to make a fuss, unless service is truly abysmal. But we do love moaning about service (and everything else). It's not that we're tolerant of subpar service, it's more that we positively relish it.
Ah after looking at the link I realized it was Jeremy Clarkson who written the article. Truly a giant among men. :lol:
When you speak German to a Francophone they usually learn English pretty damn quickly.
Quote from: Tyr on September 04, 2009, 06:01:10 PM
More relevant to here of course; we have a positive outlook on life contrary to the negative view of many other countries.
To the British the world is a wonderful, perfect place by default. Hence any deviation there upon must be noted.
Many others though seem to believe the world to be a absolute shit hole by default and any minor improvement on that needs praising to the ends of the earth.
:huh: The British are definitely not viewed as optimists on this side of the pond.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 04, 2009, 07:54:52 PM
:huh: The British are definitely not viewed as optimists on this side of the pond.
We're not, I don't think. We're tepid at best.
There are complications here.
British people are pessimists and expect things to be crap. If they are not crap then we are surprised and delighted, if they are crap then we are vindicated and perceptive. Either way we win.
So, to look at it from Clarkson's point of view. He's in a Canadian hospital, they can (a) either treat the kid quickly and he gets to back to his hotel quickly, or (b) they can keep the kid waiting for hours and hours and get pretentious about their silly dialect. Luckily for Clarkson the hospital sucked; his next column is more or less written for him and he has the satisfaction of knowing that foreigners are even bigger wankers than Englishmen :cool:
Frogs going out of their way to be asses is nothing new. This limey jerk should have expected them to be slovenly and barely competent.
this is only national news in Quebec.
btw, I've known a furriner to be treated at no charge in BC. because he could not pay.
anyway, in Canada, it is up to the provinces to deliver national standards. so we do not have one standard of service, we have 11 and two halves.
I love how he's all upset about the folks speaking french :huh:
Quote from: saskganesh on September 04, 2009, 10:04:40 PM
this is only national news in Quebec.
It's not news anywhere.
QuoteAnd nor should all of Canada be judged on Quebec, which is full of idealistic, language-Nazi lunatics.
:lol:
I :wub: Clarkson.
Wow 300 bucks? Man the same procedure would put you back about 1,500 here. If you had the insurance for it you'd also do about a dozen scans as well.
"Well you legs broken, but at least you don't have lung cancer".
[grallon]I'm surprised Her Majesty's government tolerates the absolute refusal to assimilate on behalf of these filthy dirty Neanderthals. They should be given a simple choice: either learn English and behave like a proper Westerner or get shipped off to whatever shithole in France you came from. [/grallon]
Quote from: Viking on September 04, 2009, 07:28:58 PM
When you speak German to a Francophone they usually learn English pretty damn quickly.
Yeah but then again French people are prone to capitulating in the presence of Germans.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 05, 2009, 12:09:20 AM
I love how he's all upset about the folks speaking french :huh:
LOL is this what you read from this article? The doctor spoke English to other people yet snobbishly refused to speak English to a distressed parent of an injured child who obviously did not speak French and you interpret it as "being upset about the folks speaking french"? :lol:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 04, 2009, 07:54:52 PM
Quote from: Tyr on September 04, 2009, 06:01:10 PM
More relevant to here of course; we have a positive outlook on life contrary to the negative view of many other countries.
To the British the world is a wonderful, perfect place by default. Hence any deviation there upon must be noted.
Many others though seem to believe the world to be a absolute shit hole by default and any minor improvement on that needs praising to the ends of the earth.
:huh: The British are definitely not viewed as optimists on this side of the pond.
I don't think I would call them optimists. It's more the case of having exceedingly low expectations when dealing with all the savages who are not subjects of the Queen (at least that's my experience when dealing with various Brit friends who visited Poland - they often marveled at stuff we consider crappy here :P).
Quote from: Martinus on September 05, 2009, 03:50:27 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 04, 2009, 07:28:58 PM
When you speak German to a Francophone they usually learn English pretty damn quickly.
Yeah but then again French people are prone to capitulating in the presence of Germans.
I consider that an extra benefit.
Oh, wow, it was Clarkson, didn't notice that, I was half asleep.
He is a well known troll in Britain.
Quote from: Tyr on September 05, 2009, 04:36:45 AM
Oh, wow, it was Clarkson, didn't notice that, I was half asleep.
He is a well known troll in Britain.
I don't always (or often) agree with him, but he is funny. He'd be a great addition to this forum. :)
Quote from: Martinus on September 05, 2009, 03:46:41 AM
[grallon]I'm surprised Her Majesty's government tolerates the absolute refusal to assimilate on behalf of these filthy dirty Neanderthals. They should be given a simple choice: either learn English and behave like a proper Westerner or get shipped off to whatever shithole in France you came from. [/grallon]
:face:
Is private care really banned in Canada?
Anyway, I don't see how it would have improved the situation. I doubt anyone would risk funding a private ER unit in the middle of nowhere.
Quote from: Iormlund on September 05, 2009, 09:59:07 AM
Is private care really banned in Canada?
Anyway, I don't see how it would have improved the situation. I doubt anyone would risk funding a private ER unit in the middle of nowhere.
Yes and No.
Doctors can not charge for services provided for under the Canada Health Act (most basic services) but they can and do charge for services not covered under the act. So, for example, I pay a premium to get services in addition to the basic services covered by the government.
Quote from: grumbler on September 05, 2009, 09:45:50 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 05, 2009, 03:46:41 AM
[grallon]I'm surprised Her Majesty's government tolerates the absolute refusal to assimilate on behalf of these filthy dirty Neanderthals. They should be given a simple choice: either learn English and behave like a proper Westerner or get shipped off to whatever shithole in France you came from. [/grallon]
:face:
Indeed. Marty is really the king of analogies.
Grallon actually does speak English, so he gets a pass. At least until Neil takes charge and brutally represses the homos.
Gralls speaks good English.
A pass for what ?
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 05, 2009, 10:09:39 AM
A pass for what ?
QuoteThey should be given a simple choice: either learn English and behave like a proper Westerner or get shipped off to whatever shithole in France you came from.
And is that choice a propre reflection of your thoughts or just the usual Languish posturing ?
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 05, 2009, 10:21:01 AM
And is that choice a propre reflection of your thoughts or just the usual Languish posturing ?
:lol:
It was Martinus speaking as a caricature of Grallon.
Oh noes, someone didn't like his stay in Quebec! Who fucking cares, really? Only Quebecers, and Quebecers whine all the time. It is a national sport. :rolleyes:
Really, Are Quebecers really that sensitive that when someone expresses his disgust at certain features of our society it because a national tragedy? Because everytime someone diss Quebec for whatever reason, sometimes justified, it becomes a national whinging drama here.
And he does have a point, many elements of the civil service in Quebec are very anti-anglophone. One of my GF's friend is from BC with a degree in nursing, and the MEQ (Quebec's Education department) required her to complete her equvalence in nursing to work here. Perfectly fine until now. However they added the express condition that she took her courses in French, else they said she would't get a dime in subside from the government to pay for it.
Trouble is, she doesn't speak French at all, so she is caught in a conendrum. Because she couldn't find any work in her field here because she needs her equivalence and she had two children to feed, she was forced to receive social welfare. Plus my girlfriend, who speaks French, accompanied her once and heared them talk in very disparaging French words to laugh at her BC friend in plain front of her, as she couldn't understand them. And I remind you again, they were civil servants.
I told her to make a formal complaint to the Ombudsman or even to call the media and make a fuss about it, but instead she prefered to say a big fuck you to your "perfect Quebec society" and return to BC with her children.
No, Quebec is not a perfect society. It is not even a just society. It is an backward, sclerosed society whose French-speaking people compensate their overall mediocrity with self-boasting pretensions of being different and opened to the world, yet so lacking in confidence in themselves that they need to climb the fence everytime someone dares to criticize their beloved land even when it is justified.
Another beautiful example of them being so over-sensitive, that even now that the festivities for the 250th anniversary of the battle of the Plaines d'Abraham have been replaced by some inoffensive "parole mill" in which people from both sides, both languages, and from both spectrums of Quebec's national debate, are there to read texts and poetry - which is pretty innocuous in itself - Quebec City's mayor decided to suddenly boycott the event because he publicly branded the bloke who leads the Mouvement de Résistance du Québec, who said he'd be present as invited guest as head of a small but vocal separatist militant group, as a "violent separatist radical". Okey, the guy and his group are very vehement and outspoken about independence, I agree. But it doesn't take to be Einstein to see that violence has never been part of their rethoric. However, since they are very outspoken and aggressive about their beliefs they are now presented as "violent".
And to add to bullshit, the Quebec Government decided to do the same because some artist was to read the FLQ manifesto. Wat the fuck is wrong with you, people? No one believes in the FLQ anyway except a handful of old militants still sticking to the whole "English is evil" shtick, and it is a fundamental text of our collective history and our struggle with the English elite since the Conquête. But hey, if views we don't agree with are present, even when perfectly outdated, we'll throw the baby with the bath and the water and wringe our hands in public and in the media about it.
I was born here, so it is perfectly my right to tell you Quebecers the plain truth: Your society sucks balls and you need to grow a collective spine.
Last time I was in Quebec I thought the customs people were kind of snotty. But they were also very hot.
Quote from: Drakken on September 05, 2009, 11:36:20 AM
Oh noes, someone didn't like his stay in Quebec! Who fucking cares, really? Only Quebecers, and Quebecers whine all the time. It is a national sport. :rolleyes:
That's because these anecdotes serve as fuel for people who want to score political points -- just like Canada's health system is being bandied about in the US to score political points. They are picked and chosen by political informal networks. Though the extant to which we do pick up those anecdotes in Quebec is interesting, a paradoxical desire to exist - and be appreciated - in foreign eyes, akin to what also exists (but is heavily combatted) in the US.
These were the best Quebecers ever.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffreepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com%2F%7Erberko1%2FWrestling%2FWWF%2FChamps%2FTag%2F057Quebecers.jpg&hash=079cc3693c01f1adad2008ae213d8292ecd8d26c)
Drakken, tell you friend to learn french or go home.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 05, 2009, 12:09:08 PM
Drakken, tell you friend to learn french or go home.
Learning a language well enough to get by in everyday conversation is one thing, learning it to the extent that one can succeed in the academic environment of college is another. It takes most people years to learn a language that well.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 05, 2009, 12:09:08 PM
Drakken, tell you friend to learn french or go home.
Fuck you. The language of Canada is English. You lost the war. Canada: love it or leave it.
Hell, normally jingoism is an alien concept to me, but I think I could be a Canadian nationalist. Especially if it meant hating the Quebecois traitors.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 05, 2009, 12:09:08 PM
Drakken, tell you friend to learn french or go home.
His point still stands, though. The financing of French courses has taken a drop in recent years and needs to be much more promoted and sustained.
Quote from: Martinus on September 05, 2009, 12:38:22 PM
Hell, normally jingoism is an alien concept to me, but I think I could be a Canadian nationalist. Especially if it meant hating the Quebecois traitors.
Heh, you should see the posts by "Niptium" on the Paradox forums. :P
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 05, 2009, 12:09:08 PM
Drakken, tell you friend to learn french or go home.
Quebec is in Canada. English is the one and only language of Canada.
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 05, 2009, 12:42:34 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 05, 2009, 12:09:08 PM
Drakken, tell you friend to learn french or go home.
His point still stands, though. The financing of French courses has taken a drop in recent years and needs to be much more promoted and sustained.
It might be great among your pals in the ivory tower at Le Devoir, but didn't you notice there is a shortage of nurses in Quebec's public healthcare system? If our local formation cannot withstand the demand and supply enough nurses for our hospitals, where to find nurses and such highly valued service providers but in the ROC?
Filling such high demand positions in health care demand that we reexamine our prerequisites and that we cut a little slack on this obsession. Perhaps Quebec should do what all civilized countries do, compromise and pay courses in French for Anglophones so that they may work in Quebec and learn the fucking language while they study to earn their schooling equivalencies.
And chances are the criteria forced on my friend's case were in fact arbitrarily imposed, just to piss on her because she is unilingually Anglo (like 80% or so of the WASP population in Canada), and that such requirements were in fact not needed.
And that does not excuse the cavalier and unprofessional, if not outright xenophobic treatment people from the Anglo community face when asking for service from some elements of Quebec's civil service when they can't speak French, like my friend. Especially in Montreal. The fact is translators services should be available, or they should be redirected to people who are bilingual, not ridiculed and insulted behind her back like she was.
EDIT: Errrrrrrrrrrrr, Oex was in fact in agreement with me. Meal culpa. :Embarrass: :hug:
Quote from: Neil on September 05, 2009, 01:01:41 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 05, 2009, 12:09:08 PM
Drakken, tell you friend to learn french or go home.
Quebec is in Canada. English is the one and only language of Canada.
While I disagree, at least English should be available by default in public services, if only because Quebec is part of Canada and Quebec is the exception, not the rule.
Quote from: Drakken on September 05, 2009, 02:15:09 PM
It might be great among your pals in the ivory tower at Le Devoir, but didn't you notice there is a shortage of nurses in Quebec's public healthcare system?
Before reverting to your usual aggressive manner, perhaps you should have read what I wrote, as I was agreeing with you regarding the needs to subsidy heavily French courses. Which is what was actually done in Quebec before 1990s.
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 05, 2009, 02:28:15 PM
Quote from: Drakken on September 05, 2009, 02:15:09 PM
It might be great among your pals in the ivory tower at Le Devoir, but didn't you notice there is a shortage of nurses in Quebec's public healthcare system?
Before reverting to your usual aggressive manner, perhaps you should have read what I wrote, as I was agreeing with you regarding the needs to subsidy heavily French courses. Which is what was actually done in Quebec before 1990s.
I noticed too late, and I apologized. See my edit. :lol:
Quote from: Ancient Demon on September 05, 2009, 12:43:34 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 05, 2009, 12:38:22 PM
Hell, normally jingoism is an alien concept to me, but I think I could be a Canadian nationalist. Especially if it meant hating the Quebecois traitors.
Heh, you should see the posts by "Niptium" on the Paradox forums. :P
And I refer you to my reply to his last pro-separatist diatribe in the OT, in which I thoroughly trash his illusions with a sledgehammer. :P
Quote from: Drakken on September 05, 2009, 02:21:29 PM
While I disagree, at least English should be available by default in public services, if only because Quebec is part of Canada and Quebec is the exception, not the rule.
All public services should be bilingual. If Ireland can have a Gaelic speaking police force then everyone in the public sector in Canada should be bilingual. You at least have two living languages.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 05, 2009, 03:22:40 PM
All public services should be bilingual. If Ireland can have a Gaelic speaking police force then everyone in the public sector in Canada should be bilingual. You at least have two living languages.
You would either incur the massive expense of teaching every postmaster in the Yukon French or you would narrow down the pool of applicants dramatically.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 05, 2009, 03:22:40 PM
Quote from: Drakken on September 05, 2009, 02:21:29 PM
While I disagree, at least English should be available by default in public services, if only because Quebec is part of Canada and Quebec is the exception, not the rule.
All public services should be bilingual. If Ireland can have a Gaelic speaking police force then everyone in the public sector in Canada should be bilingual. You at least have two living languages.
Perhaps if both languages were equal. However, English is superior to French in every way, and usage of French is concentrated in a relatively small area of the country.
Then again, since you come from a rather small, homogenous country, you probably don't appreciate the difficulties involved.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 05, 2009, 06:26:19 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 05, 2009, 03:22:40 PM
All public services should be bilingual. If Ireland can have a Gaelic speaking police force then everyone in the public sector in Canada should be bilingual. You at least have two living languages.
You would either incur the massive expense of teaching every postmaster in the Yukon French or you would narrow down the pool of applicants dramatically.
I agree. It should begin with every primary school being bilingual. It might cost a bit to teach the teachers - though maybe there are enough Quebecois teachers. This isn't, alas, immediately possible but it would only take a generation.
QuoteThen again, since you come from a rather small, homogenous country, you probably don't appreciate the difficulties involved.
Well smaller geographically. I'd have no problem with every school in this country being bilingual, or non-English language medium. Indeed one of my friends didn't learn English until he was 8 (grew up in a Welsh-speaking area of Wales) which I think is great. It should be something we all get, especially in countries with two or more languages.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 05, 2009, 07:15:15 PM
I agree. It should begin with every primary school being bilingual. It might cost a bit to teach the teachers - though maybe there are enough Quebecois teachers. This isn't, alas, immediately possible but it would only take a generation.
Politically impossible. Besides, why educate children in what is effectively a dead language like French?
Shelf, when you're talking about a massive government outlay of funds it would be helpful if your justification were a little more substantial than "I think it would be nice."
Quote from: Martinus on September 05, 2009, 12:37:40 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 05, 2009, 12:09:08 PM
Drakken, tell you friend to learn french or go home.
Fuck you. The language of Canada is English. You lost the war. Canada: love it or leave it.
Actually, it is what many wants... that Québec leaves Canada
Language of Canada maybe english but language of Québec is french :P
Quote from: Neil on September 05, 2009, 01:01:41 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 05, 2009, 12:09:08 PM
Drakken, tell you friend to learn french or go home.
Quebec is in Canada. English is the one and only language of Canada.
Try to say that to people of Charlevoix, Abitibi or Kamouraska :P
Quote from: Rex Francorum on September 05, 2009, 08:40:27 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 05, 2009, 12:37:40 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 05, 2009, 12:09:08 PM
Drakken, tell you friend to learn french or go home.
Fuck you. The language of Canada is English. You lost the war. Canada: love it or leave it.
Actually, it is what many wants... that Québec leaves Canada
Language of Canada maybe english but language of Québec is french :P
But they want to keep canadian subsidies :lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 05, 2009, 08:09:07 PM
Shelf, when you're talking about a massive government outlay of funds it would be helpful if your justification were a little more substantial than "I think it would be nice."
I don't think it would require a massive government outlay. If schools in Catalunia can teach in both Spanish and Catalan and ones in Ireland teach both Irish and English then I don't see why Canada wouldn't be able to teach in both French and English. Especially because I believe there are significantly more French speakers in Canada than there are Irish speakers in Ireland. So I reject the idea that effective bilingual education would cause a massive outlay.
I mean even on a small scale Scotland starts teaching the first foreign language at, I believe, 8. That's relatively recent but hasn't cost an obscene amount. It's far, far easier to teach a language to a child than it is when they're teenagers and I think that learning a foreign language should be as much a core of education as science, geography, history or anything else.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 05, 2009, 08:46:21 PM
I don't think it would require a massive government outlay. If schools in Catalunia can teach in both Spanish and Catalan and ones in Ireland teach both Irish and English then I don't see why Canada wouldn't be able to teach in both French and English. Especially because I believe there are significantly more French speakers in Canada than there are Irish speakers in Ireland. So I reject the idea that effective bilingual education would cause a massive outlay.
I mean even on a small scale Scotland starts teaching the first foreign language at, I believe, 8. That's relatively recent but hasn't cost an obscene amount. It's far, far easier to teach a language to a child than it is when they're teenagers and I think that learning a foreign language should be as much a core of education as science, geography, history or anything else.
And do you find that all Scotsmen are bilingual? It's one thing to study a language, it's a totally different thing to maintain it. Those who maintain it usually do so because there is a perceived utility. E.g. Spanish for Catalans.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 05, 2009, 08:46:21 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 05, 2009, 08:09:07 PM
Shelf, when you're talking about a massive government outlay of funds it would be helpful if your justification were a little more substantial than "I think it would be nice."
I don't think it would require a massive government outlay. If schools in Catalunia can teach in both Spanish and Catalan and ones in Ireland teach both Irish and English then I don't see why Canada wouldn't be able to teach in both French and English. Especially because I believe there are significantly more French speakers in Canada than there are Irish speakers in Ireland. So I reject the idea that effective bilingual education would cause a massive outlay.
I mean even on a small scale Scotland starts teaching the first foreign language at, I believe, 8. That's relatively recent but hasn't cost an obscene amount. It's far, far easier to teach a language to a child than it is when they're teenagers and I think that learning a foreign language should be as much a core of education as science, geography, history or anything else.
Ireland is a tiny, homogenous country. Catalunia is a tiny, homogenous district of a small country. What you are talking about is a massive make-work project for Quebecois. Canadians do not like Quebecois, anymore than they like French.
You're absolutely wrong about learning a foreign language. It just isn't important.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 05, 2009, 08:49:24 PM
And do you find that all Scotsmen are bilingual? It's one thing to study a language, it's a totally different thing to maintain it. Those who maintain it usually do so because there is a perceived utility. E.g. Spanish for Catalans.
Well I don't know about the effects in Scotland, it's only been going for the past few years. The plan is that ultimately kids will start learning French when they start school.
You're right that it's totally different to maintain it. I don't think it's much to require that state employees do, in a country that's officially bilingual. I think that's the way that Irish is maintained to the level that I believe most Irish citizens and certainly state employees are semi-fluent.
Although I think you're missing the pleasure principle. Everyone I know who's good at another language, who doesn't have one parent speaking another language, maintain them for love, not utility. They go on holiday to France at least once a year, watch French films and some love French poetry (for some reason they're all French-speakers). I think language that's all utility is a failure of teaching.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 05, 2009, 09:10:49 PM
Although I think you're missing the pleasure principle. Everyone I know who's good at another language, who doesn't have one parent speaking another language, maintain them for love, not utility. They go on holiday to France at least once a year, watch French films and some love French poetry (for some reason they're all French-speakers). I think language that's all utility is a failure of teaching.
I don't think that most of Canada would decide to have a love of speaking French if taught it in schools...especially if the French instruction is rightfully seen as a project for the benefit of Quebec.
I was educated in French, and I have nothing but contempt for Quebec, and see the French language as a dead end, useful only as resume padding.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 05, 2009, 09:10:49 PM
Everyone I know who's good at another language, who doesn't have one parent speaking another language, maintain them for love, not utility. They go on holiday to France at least once a year, watch French films and some love French poetry (for some reason they're all French-speakers). I think language that's all utility is a failure of teaching.
That's because everyone you know who's good at another language is a hobbyist. You can't assume the same motivation for the entire Canadian civil service.
Quote from: garbon on September 05, 2009, 09:19:13 PM
I don't think that most of Canada would decide to have a love of speaking French if taught it in schools...especially if the French instruction is rightfully seen as a project for the benefit of Quebec.
It's not for the benefit of Quebec. It's to fulfill the fact that Canada's officially a bilingual nation. It's as much for the Clarksons as the Leclercs.
QuoteThat's because everyone you know who's good at another language is a hobbyist. You can't assume the same motivation for the entire Canadian civil service.
Yeah, which is where the utility comes in. But bilingual education would enable more people to have the hobby as well as state jobs.
Quote from: Martinus on September 05, 2009, 12:37:40 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 05, 2009, 12:09:08 PM
Drakken, tell you friend to learn french or go home.
Fuck you. The language of Canada is English. You lost the war. Canada: love it or leave it.
We didn't lose no war. France lost the war & left. Canadians are still here.
I mean, as a tourist you are free to come here & fuck other men as much as you want (and will probably be seen much better then in Ontario) in english, no one will complain.
But if you want to work in an hospital, well you're going to do it in French.
It's a choice we made, 40 years ago, You don't have to like it, you don't have to come here.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 05, 2009, 10:26:26 PM
We didn't lose no war. France lost the war & left. Canadians are still here.
I mean, as a tourist you are free to come here & fuck other men as much as you want (and will probably be seen much better then in Ontario) in english, no one will complain.
But if you want to work in an hospital, well you're going to do it in French.
It's a choice we made, 40 years ago, You don't have to like it, you don't have to come here.
I'd like to fuck another man in french, maybe in a hospital as well.
Entirely possible.
Would you like me to arrange something? I charge 50$.
No thanks. I prefer to handle my business on my own.
In fact, in my province there are mandatory French classes between the ages of 8 to 14. However, virtually everyone agrees their net effect is practically: none. Even those students who take French through the end of high school generally just speak enough "to get by" and navigate road signs and shops when in Quebec.
Canada already has laws governing bilingualism in the federal public service and certain other industries. The effect of these laws is that these industries tend to be dominated disproportionately by Francophones, who, for obvious reasons, generally usually speak English better than Anglophones will speak French.
The laws also lead to some other absurdities. Air Canada, for instance, has laws governing its need to offer services in both English and French. Thus, sometimes language inspectors will pop up in Buttfuck, Alberta and file a complaint if no one there speaks French to their satisfaction.
Canada is a federation, where provinces decide a lot of things.
What a lot of you guys don't seem to get is that Quebec is unilingual francophone. That's a fact. There's really no point in complaining when you don't get served in english. 90% of the population is francophone and a big chunk of that doesn't speak english, especially out in the countryside.
There's no real incentive for them to learn english. There's even less incentive for them to serve you in english.
Just like you shouldn't expect to be served in english in a small town in turkey, china, italy or wherever.
On parle francais icitte. Calisse.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 06, 2009, 12:21:00 AM
Canada is a federation, where provinces decide a lot of things.
What a lot of you guys don't seem to get is that Quebec is unilingual francophone. That's a fact. There's really no point in complaining when you don't get served in english. 90% of the population is francophone and a big chunk of that doesn't speak english, especially out in the countryside.
There's no real incentive for them to learn english. There's even less incentive for them to serve you in english.
Just like you shouldn't expect to be served in english in a small town in turkey, china, italy or wherever.
On parle francais icitte. Calisse.
We understand that, but this doctor knew English, and simply refused to speak it to this family.
Doctors are assholes everywhere in the world. It's just easier when they can hide behind a language barrier.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 06, 2009, 12:33:48 AM
Doctors are assholes everywhere in the world. It's just easier when they can hide behind a language barrier.
:huh: Doctors in Rhode Island aren't.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 06, 2009, 12:26:49 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 06, 2009, 12:21:00 AM
Canada is a federation, where provinces decide a lot of things.
What a lot of you guys don't seem to get is that Quebec is unilingual francophone. That's a fact. There's really no point in complaining when you don't get served in english. 90% of the population is francophone and a big chunk of that doesn't speak english, especially out in the countryside.
There's no real incentive for them to learn english. There's even less incentive for them to serve you in english.
Just like you shouldn't expect to be served in english in a small town in turkey, china, italy or wherever.
On parle francais icitte. Calisse.
We understand that, but this doctor knew English, and simply refused to speak it to this family.
So? What's your conclusion?
Mine is that the doctor either had a real limited grasp of english, or he was an asshole, or the author is full of shit and embellishing it.
Whatever it is, big fucking deal.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 06, 2009, 12:46:00 AM
So? What's your conclusion?
Mine is that the doctor either had a real limited grasp of english, or he was an asshole, or the author is full of shit and embellishing it.
Whatever it is, big fucking deal.
So why does Quebec care?
...
Or was Viper embellishing? :angry:
Btw, missed a subway train yesterday, because three Quebec backpackers were blocking the entire breadth of the stairs. DOWN WITH QUEBEC! :mad:
You guys wouldn't have this problem at all if you had let the US win in 1812. Quebec would be just a Louisiana in the north.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 06, 2009, 01:27:01 AM
You guys wouldn't have this problem at all if you had let the US win in 1812. Quebec would be just a Louisiana in the north.
A place where black people die because of George Bush's indifference?
Quote from: Syt on September 05, 2009, 12:08:55 PM
These were the best Quebecers ever.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffreepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com%2F%7Erberko1%2FWrestling%2FWWF%2FChamps%2FTag%2F057Quebecers.jpg&hash=079cc3693c01f1adad2008ae213d8292ecd8d26c)
Tomax and Xamot?
Quote from: Zoupa on September 06, 2009, 12:21:00 AM
Canada is a federation, where provinces decide a lot of things.
What a lot of you guys don't seem to get is that Quebec is unilingual francophone. That's a fact. There's really no point in complaining when you don't get served in english. 90% of the population is francophone and a big chunk of that doesn't speak english, especially out in the countryside.
There's no real incentive for them to learn english. There's even less incentive for them to serve you in english.
Just like you shouldn't expect to be served in english in a small town in turkey, china, italy or wherever.
On parle francais icitte. Calisse.
So the real question is, why would anyone visit Quebec?
At least France actually has cool stuff, like Paris and the Arc d'Triumphe and the Louvre and Verdun and unexploded ordnance and all sorts of shit. Hell, you're even probably closer to an Anglophone safe harbor in Paris than you are in Montreal. And if you really do think you'd miss a bunch of quaint nationalist assholes being unnecessarily difficult, you can just go to Belgium and talk with some Flems... :P
Quote from: Ideologue on September 06, 2009, 01:41:24 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 06, 2009, 12:21:00 AM
Canada is a federation, where provinces decide a lot of things.
What a lot of you guys don't seem to get is that Quebec is unilingual francophone. That's a fact. There's really no point in complaining when you don't get served in english. 90% of the population is francophone and a big chunk of that doesn't speak english, especially out in the countryside.
There's no real incentive for them to learn english. There's even less incentive for them to serve you in english.
Just like you shouldn't expect to be served in english in a small town in turkey, china, italy or wherever.
On parle francais icitte. Calisse.
So the real question is, why would anyone visit Quebec?
At least France actually has cool stuff, like Paris and the Arc d'Triumphe and the Louvre and Verdun and unexploded ordnance and all sorts of shit. Hell, you're even probably closer to an Anglophone safe harbor in Paris than you are in Montreal. And if you really do think you'd miss a bunch of quaint nationalist assholes being unnecessarily difficult, you can just go to Belgium and talk with some Flems... :P
at least we flems will talk to you in Dutch, English, French and depending on what type of education they had passable german, spanish or italian and maybe some greek too. So stuff it. :p
Quote from: Zoupa on September 06, 2009, 12:21:00 AM
Canada is a federation, where provinces decide a lot of things.
What a lot of you guys don't seem to get is that Quebec is unilingual francophone. That's a fact. There's really no point in complaining when you don't get served in english. 90% of the population is francophone and a big chunk of that doesn't speak english, especially out in the countryside.
There's no real incentive for them to learn english. There's even less incentive for them to serve you in english.
Just like you shouldn't expect to be served in english in a small town in turkey, china, italy or wherever.
On parle francais icitte. Calisse.
Swedes speak English even in the countryside. Sorry Quebec, you ARE retarded and backwards.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 05, 2009, 08:46:21 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 05, 2009, 08:09:07 PM
Shelf, when you're talking about a massive government outlay of funds it would be helpful if your justification were a little more substantial than "I think it would be nice."
I don't think it would require a massive government outlay. If schools in Catalunia can teach in both Spanish and Catalan and ones in Ireland teach both Irish and English then I don't see why Canada wouldn't be able to teach in both French and English. Especially because I believe there are significantly more French speakers in Canada than there are Irish speakers in Ireland. So I reject the idea that effective bilingual education would cause a massive outlay.
I mean even on a small scale Scotland starts teaching the first foreign language at, I believe, 8. That's relatively recent but hasn't cost an obscene amount. It's far, far easier to teach a language to a child than it is when they're teenagers and I think that learning a foreign language should be as much a core of education as science, geography, history or anything else.
Yeah but weren't you advocating that the entire country should be bilingual? If people in Catalonia are bilingual it's one thing, but if we applied your previous proposition to Spain, every Spaniard should be bilingual.
Also, it is spelled "Catalonia", not "Catalunia" in English. Spelling it "Catalunia" is nonsensical - it's like saying "Polska" instead of "Poland" in otherwise English-language communication.
Edit: Scrap it. Actually "Catalunia" is even more retarded, since the Catalan word is "Catalunya".
Quote from: garbon on September 06, 2009, 01:29:52 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 06, 2009, 01:27:01 AM
You guys wouldn't have this problem at all if you had let the US win in 1812. Quebec would be just a Louisiana in the north.
A place where black people die because of George Bush's indifference?
Well, I could also settle for white Quebecois dying. Can it be arranged?
Quote from: Martinus on September 06, 2009, 04:31:31 AM
Well, I could also settle for white Quebecois dying. Can it be arranged?
$50
Btw, are you coming to America for the gay march on Washington?
Quote from: garbon on September 06, 2009, 04:49:15 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 06, 2009, 04:31:31 AM
Well, I could also settle for white Quebecois dying. Can it be arranged?
$50
Btw, are you coming to America for the gay march on Washington?
Loose lips sink slips. We are on to your military operations.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 06, 2009, 04:51:40 AM
Loose lips sink slips. We are on to your military operations.
Well they are advertising. :P
I think that Sheilbh is quite right to push for bilingual education, even in the absence of a strict "utility" to the language. Learning a second language tells a student a lot about their own language, and being able to see oideas presented in different languages can allow students to see things in completely different ways. I think that there is no question in the educational field that second (and even third) languages are a great benefit even to students that won't speak them outside school.
That is a reason why Latin is still taught even though native Latin-speakers are thin on the ground.
Quote from: garbon on September 06, 2009, 04:49:15 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 06, 2009, 04:31:31 AM
Well, I could also settle for white Quebecois dying. Can it be arranged?
$50
Btw, are you coming to America for the gay march on Washington?
I will not go to America until you guys drop the humiliating visa process for Poles. :P
Quote from: grumbler on September 06, 2009, 05:37:57 AM
I think that Sheilbh is quite right to push for bilingual education, even in the absence of a strict "utility" to the language. Learning a second language tells a student a lot about their own language, and being able to see oideas presented in different languages can allow students to see things in completely different ways. I think that there is no question in the educational field that second (and even third) languages are a great benefit even to students that won't speak them outside school.
That is a reason why Latin is still taught even though native Latin-speakers are thin on the ground.
not only that buty it's also good for the brain as it makes it more flexible. And better brains are always handy.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 06, 2009, 01:41:24 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 06, 2009, 12:21:00 AM
Canada is a federation, where provinces decide a lot of things.
What a lot of you guys don't seem to get is that Quebec is unilingual francophone. That's a fact. There's really no point in complaining when you don't get served in english. 90% of the population is francophone and a big chunk of that doesn't speak english, especially out in the countryside.
There's no real incentive for them to learn english. There's even less incentive for them to serve you in english.
Just like you shouldn't expect to be served in english in a small town in turkey, china, italy or wherever.
On parle francais icitte. Calisse.
So the real question is, why would anyone visit Quebec?
At least France actually has cool stuff, like Paris and the Arc d'Triumphe and the Louvre and Verdun and unexploded ordnance and all sorts of shit. Hell, you're even probably closer to an Anglophone safe harbor in Paris than you are in Montreal. And if you really do think you'd miss a bunch of quaint nationalist assholes being unnecessarily difficult, you can just go to Belgium and talk with some Flems... :P
Quebec has some rather nice lakes and forests, better and less crowded than Ontario's, far closer to civilization than Manitoba and far more affordable than the Alberta national parks of Jasper and Banff. BC's southern interior might be comparable, but it's thousands of kilometres away. If you like that sort of thing, you could do a lot worse than Quebec.
Montreal is something of a safe Anglophone harbour, although they try and make it less so. They've tried to chase away the prosperity that only English can provide, but it still hangs on.
Quote from: grumbler on September 06, 2009, 05:37:57 AM
I think that Sheilbh is quite right to push for bilingual education, even in the absence of a strict "utility" to the language. Learning a second language tells a student a lot about their own language, and being able to see oideas presented in different languages can allow students to see things in completely different ways. I think that there is no question in the educational field that second (and even third) languages are a great benefit even to students that won't speak them outside school.
Education is a racket anyways. They would say or do anything in order to improve their lot.
QuoteThat is a reason why Latin is still taught even though native Latin-speakers are thin on the ground.
Because that's what our ancestors learnt, back when Latin was the One Language that all civilized people could speak, and the early educational types saw Greek and Latin as civilized languages, rather than the backwards languages of barbarian peoples we know they are today.
Quote from: Martinus on September 06, 2009, 05:40:06 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 06, 2009, 04:49:15 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 06, 2009, 04:31:31 AM
Well, I could also settle for white Quebecois dying. Can it be arranged?
$50
Btw, are you coming to America for the gay march on Washington?
I will not go to America until you guys drop the humiliating visa process for Poles. :P
They are thinking about adding a 10 dollar entry fee for Euros in congress.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 06, 2009, 01:41:24 AM
So the real question is, why would anyone visit Quebec?
At least France actually has cool stuff, like Paris and the Arc d'Triumphe and the Louvre and Verdun and unexploded ordnance and all sorts of shit. Hell, you're even probably closer to an Anglophone safe harbor in Paris than you are in Montreal. And if you really do think you'd miss a bunch of quaint nationalist assholes being unnecessarily difficult, you can just go to Belgium and talk with some Flems... :P
Amazing babes as far as the eye can see. Acres and acres of them. Many of them willing to take off their clothes and buff your zipper for a few pennies.
And for the record during my trips to Quebec I caught no whiff of crap attitude (apart from the customs & immigration chicks), language related or not. And like Neil mentioned Montreal is very English friendly.
Quote from: Martinus on September 06, 2009, 04:27:57 AM
Yeah but weren't you advocating that the entire country should be bilingual? If people in Catalonia are bilingual it's one thing, but if we applied your previous proposition to Spain, every Spaniard should be bilingual.
The difference is that Catalan is a local tongue, like Welsh. So there's no real benefit in everyone in Spain learning it while it's good for Catalans (or Welsh) and learning one language at a young age makes learning another easier, for example I imagine most Spanish high schools teach English or French. I think all Canada should learn French and English because neither language is just a Canadian regional language, they're both global. So it's like kids in Scotland learning French.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 06, 2009, 11:09:40 AM
The difference is that Catalan is a local tongue, like Welsh. So there's no real benefit in everyone in Spain learning it while it's good for Catalans (or Welsh) and learning one language at a young age makes learning another easier, for example I imagine most Spanish high schools teach English or French. I think all Canada should learn French and English because neither language is just a Canadian regional language, they're both global. So it's like kids in Scotland learning French.
Despite Neil's usual background noise, it does hint at one of the problems, IMO, in Canada. Neither language is seen as opportunities to broaden one's world. In Québec, the only selling point of English has always been utility - but it is a powerful selling point in today's world. Outside of Québec, French is always seen as political, unuseful, a symbol of the Federal's will upon the provinces, a waste of time, a waste of money, capriciousness, a relic, a hurdle to one's career, etc. Bilingualism has very rarely been seen as a great utopia, but as an irritating political measure.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 06, 2009, 11:09:40 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 06, 2009, 04:27:57 AM
Yeah but weren't you advocating that the entire country should be bilingual? If people in Catalonia are bilingual it's one thing, but if we applied your previous proposition to Spain, every Spaniard should be bilingual.
The difference is that Catalan is a local tongue, like Welsh. So there's no real benefit in everyone in Spain learning it while it's good for Catalans (or Welsh) and learning one language at a young age makes learning another easier, for example I imagine most Spanish high schools teach English or French. I think all Canada should learn French and English because neither language is just a Canadian regional language, they're both global. So it's like kids in Scotland learning French.
French is more of a regional language in Canada - a very large country indeed. While there are large French-speaking minorities outside of Quebec (particularly in some parts of Northern Ontario, the Metis in Manitoba, and New Brunswick), in vast parts of Canada hardly anyone speaks it. In Southern Ontario and in British Columbia, Chinese would be considerably more useful than French; in Saskatchewan, Ukranian. Why not have kids speaking these languages (often their own ancestral languages) instead, if there are only resources to teach one additional language?
Not that learning French isn't rewarding for its own sake, mind you. But the notion it is more than a regional language in Canada isn't really correct. You are no more likely to hear French spoken in Toronto than in London, and politics aside there is no more reason (and of course no less) to learn it here than there.
And that's really the rub: the
only reason to learn the language in most of English Canada (as opposed to any other) is, basically, political: to make Quebequois comfortable with confederation. Like anything done essentially to appease someone elses' anxieties, it appears pointless and onerous to its victims - schoolkids - even though of course learning a language is always "a good thing".
What rankles in Quebec is of course the fact that the reverse is not true. Learning English is essential to avoid being trapped in provincialism, since much of the world communicates in it as the "lingua francia" (ironically enough).
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2009, 11:23:27 AM
And that's really the rub: the only reason to learn the language in most of English Canada (as opposed to any other) is, basically, political: to make Quebequois comfortable with confederation. Like anything done essentially to appease someone elses' anxieties, it appears pointless and onerous to its victims - schoolkids - even though of course learning a language is always "a good thing".
Here is usually where we disagree: on whether Canadian history means something or nothing (I suspect you take a much more «presentist» notion of the country than I do) and then, if it means something, what type of society is ought to produce.
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 06, 2009, 11:33:38 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2009, 11:23:27 AM
And that's really the rub: the only reason to learn the language in most of English Canada (as opposed to any other) is, basically, political: to make Quebequois comfortable with confederation. Like anything done essentially to appease someone elses' anxieties, it appears pointless and onerous to its victims - schoolkids - even though of course learning a language is always "a good thing".
Here is usually where we disagree: on whether Canadian history means something or nothing (I suspect you take a much more «presentist» notion of the country than I do) and then, if it means something, what type of society is ought to produce.
The issue is whether certain citizen's ancestors are to be honoured into perpetuity over other citizens' ancestors.
Are the Francophone developers of farming along the St. Lawrence more historically significant than the Ukranians who deleloped farming on the great plains of the West - because they arrived first? So much so, that the decendants of the latter should learn the formers' language as a matter of policy, even it if it is of little practical use to them?
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2009, 11:23:27 AM
French is more of a regional language in Canada - a very large country indeed. While there are large French-speaking minorities outside of Quebec (particularly in some parts of Northern Ontario, the Metis in Manitoba, and New Brunswick), in vast parts of Canada hardly anyone speaks it. In Southern Ontario and in British Columbia, Chinese would be considerably more useful than French; in Saskatchewan, Ukranian. Why not have kids speaking these languages (often their own ancestral languages) instead, if there are only resources to teach one additional language?
I'd have no problem with Chinese education, in fact I think it should be encouraged in those regions, though French should still be taught because it's an official language of Canada and is spoken by a significant minority of Canadians. I'd support Ukrainian education too.
QuoteNot that learning French isn't rewarding for its own sake, mind you. But the notion it is more than a regional language in Canada isn't really correct. You are no more likely to hear French spoken in Toronto than in London, and politics aside there is no more reason (and of course no less) to learn it here than there.
It is more than a Canadian regional language. It is a global language, it's probably top ten in the world. Now that may mean that you won't necessarily use it on a day-to-day basis in Toronto (in London I think you probably could if you wanted to, in terms of French citizens I think London's the 4-5th biggest city in the world) but it means that there's a lot more potential for teaching.
When I was 17 I stopped studying French because I wanted to focus my A-levels on other stuff, though my French teacher asked me to carry on. When I was 18 doing my A-levels I was lent a copy of 'La Haine' by one of the French teachers because I'd mentioned to her that I don't think I'd ever seen a French film. That for me was a moment when I really regretted not carrying on my French and it was the first time I realised what film could do as an art-form as opposed to just entertainment. It was a real epiphany moment.
I think that in the same way as we encourage children at schools to learn about history, to read sonnets and to understand art and music, we should encourage them to learn another language to the best of their ability. I think these are things that have no utility for most people most of the time but they can offer opportunities for work, but more importantly for pleasure for all students. I think we all agree that learning a language is a good thing but I think schools actually focus too much on the utility and not enough on the joy it will allow you to have. I think they should show Amelie to kids, when they're all 14 try and read through some Camus as a class. I think that's easier with French, because it's a global language with a culture to match. While I support learning Welsh, or Catalan, or Gaelic I think that aspect's more difficult.
My basic view is that the Canadian government should always be able to offer some degree of bilingual service because Canada's an officially bilingual status - in a similar way I think the Flems occasionally have a point. I also think that bilingualism should be encouraged in schools, from a very early age because kids pick up languages without even knowing it when they're young enough, and that French would make a very sensible default in Canada, given the official status of French. Though I've no doubt that in some areas Mandarin or Ukrainian could be as applicable.
just for info here: Belgium is a bit different from Canada.
Canada professes to be a truly bilingual nation, with both English and French being accorded official status in the whole nation.
Belgium, on the other hand, has 3 official languages (Dutch -the largest-, French and German -just a couple 10K) but isn't multilingual. Flanders is officially monolingual Dutch, Wallonia is officially monolingual French and Brussels is officially bilingual Dutch-French. Exceptions are made in socalled 'communities with facilities': in Flanders for french, in Wallonia for the dutch, and in the German Community (part of Wallonia) for German but in total that's about 20 or so communities (as in villages and stuff) in all of belgium.
Just so you kno the situation is at the same time very simple and very complicated (due to Brussels which is a once-upon-a-time flemish city turned mostly French in the rich parts, Euro in the European district and Arab in most of the rest)
French isn't really a global language, anymore than Russian, German or Chinese. The imperialism of English continues unabated.
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2009, 11:42:31 AM
The issue is whether certain citizen's ancestors are to be honoured into perpetuity over other citizens' ancestors.
If you want to put it that way, suit yourself.
But we already had this conversation, and I answered, to put it simply: yes - that's the reason we are under a British Parliamentary System, studying Common Law and Code Civil and not Ukranian Customs or organizing our bureaucracy around Confucean Ideals. Not because of the superiority of the British system, nor because of a conscious choice or perceived utility of any of those institutions. (*cue for Neil's trolling*).
This is not to say that any of these things are or should be unchanging. But Canada is neither a blank page nor an always changing country and in that regard, in a society which looks to «Rule of Law» as a guiding principle, then, yes, the character that helped structure and build these institutions which frame our everyday lives are French and British - not Ukranian or Chinese. I do not think it is outlandish or xenophobic to recognize it.
Countries are products of their history, and in Canada's case, its institutional history is both French and English.
Again: I do not care about utility. Some choices have to be about ideas and values. It is - or should be - about values and the idea of the country we'd like to shape.
Whil I suspect we would disagree with regards to how this view influences the Official Languages Act, I wholeheartedly endorse this argument.
You know, I'm surprised I'm not seeing more people bitching about how the doctor left the wound unbandaged for at least an hour. There's biohazard bins and sanitizers all over hospital facilities for a reason- you don't just take it as an article of faith that the facility is sterile. Rather than complaining about the "service," I'd be trying to get an investigation launched into the quality of care.
Pros and cons of bilingualism should also be taking a back seat here. There's a claim that the person in question was heard speaking English and then pretending not to understand to avoid answering a direct question. If part of that person's job is to answer question, then their sudden loss of ability to speak the language should lead to an equally sudden loss of the job.
Quote from: garbon on September 06, 2009, 12:59:18 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 06, 2009, 12:46:00 AM
So? What's your conclusion?
Mine is that the doctor either had a real limited grasp of english, or he was an asshole, or the author is full of shit and embellishing it.
Whatever it is, big fucking deal.
So why does Quebec care?
...
Or was Viper embellishing? :angry:
I had never heard of this story before reading it on languish, and I watch the news and read the papers daily.
I don't even think viper cares. I'm sure he posted it for the humour.
Quote from: Barrister on September 06, 2009, 02:50:13 PM
Whil I suspect we would disagree with regards to how this view influences the Official Languages Act, I wholeheartedly endorse this argument.
I am glad, because that was partly my intent. We've all been on this board long enough to try to frame an argument in a manner where we can lucidly try to navigate our agreements and our disagreements, and push them the farthest we can, and recognize where the road splits.
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 06, 2009, 01:39:11 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2009, 11:42:31 AM
The issue is whether certain citizen's ancestors are to be honoured into perpetuity over other citizens' ancestors.
If you want to put it that way, suit yourself.
But we already had this conversation, and I answered, to put it simply: yes - that's the reason we are under a British Parliamentary System, studying Common Law and Code Civil and not Ukranian Customs or organizing our bureaucracy around Confucean Ideals. Not because of the superiority of the British system, nor because of a conscious choice or perceived utility of any of those institutions. (*cue for Neil's trolling*).
This is not to say that any of these things are or should be unchanging. But Canada is neither a blank page nor an always changing country and in that regard, in a society which looks to «Rule of Law» as a guiding principle, then, yes, the character that helped structure and build these institutions which frame our everyday lives are French and British - not Ukranian or Chinese. I do not think it is outlandish or xenophobic to recognize it.
Countries are products of their history, and in Canada's case, its institutional history is both French and English.
Again: I do not care about utility. Some choices have to be about ideas and values. It is - or should be - about values and the idea of the country we'd like to shape.
So your argument essentially is that it is fine for the society to give one group of people (identified by an arbitrary characteristic) special privileges and/or respect (which involves everybody else being required to devote certain resources - such as study time in this case - to accommodate such privileges) - and at the same time deny such privileges to other groups of people - not because this is efficient, fair or deserved but because this has traditionally been so?
That is a pure definition of aristocracy.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 06, 2009, 03:02:50 PM
Pros and cons of bilingualism should also be taking a back seat here. There's a claim that the person in question was heard speaking English and then pretending not to understand to avoid answering a direct question. If part of that person's job is to answer question, then their sudden loss of ability to speak the language should lead to an equally sudden loss of the job.
Considering the author and the tone of the article, I suspect a British accent (which we hear very little of, here) might be to blame and then got blown out of proportion by the author. Or the fact that the doctor in question is an idiot.
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2009, 11:23:27 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 06, 2009, 11:09:40 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 06, 2009, 04:27:57 AM
Yeah but weren't you advocating that the entire country should be bilingual? If people in Catalonia are bilingual it's one thing, but if we applied your previous proposition to Spain, every Spaniard should be bilingual.
The difference is that Catalan is a local tongue, like Welsh. So there's no real benefit in everyone in Spain learning it while it's good for Catalans (or Welsh) and learning one language at a young age makes learning another easier, for example I imagine most Spanish high schools teach English or French. I think all Canada should learn French and English because neither language is just a Canadian regional language, they're both global. So it's like kids in Scotland learning French.
French is more of a regional language in Canada - a very large country indeed. While there are large French-speaking minorities outside of Quebec (particularly in some parts of Northern Ontario, the Metis in Manitoba, and New Brunswick), in vast parts of Canada hardly anyone speaks it. In Southern Ontario and in British Columbia, Chinese would be considerably more useful than French; in Saskatchewan, Ukranian. Why not have kids speaking these languages (often their own ancestral languages) instead, if there are only resources to teach one additional language?
Not that learning French isn't rewarding for its own sake, mind you. But the notion it is more than a regional language in Canada isn't really correct. You are no more likely to hear French spoken in Toronto than in London, and politics aside there is no more reason (and of course no less) to learn it here than there.
And that's really the rub: the only reason to learn the language in most of English Canada (as opposed to any other) is, basically, political: to make Quebequois comfortable with confederation. Like anything done essentially to appease someone elses' anxieties, it appears pointless and onerous to its victims - schoolkids - even though of course learning a language is always "a good thing".
What rankles in Quebec is of course the fact that the reverse is not true. Learning English is essential to avoid being trapped in provincialism, since much of the world communicates in it as the "lingua francia" (ironically enough).
Either French is a founding culture of Canada, or it is not. You can't declare Quebec is a nation, a founding culture etc. and then want to reduce it to "french is just one more little icon in our glorious canadian multicultural mosaic!". That kind of modern condescension from anglo canada is pretty lame.
In any case, 99% don't give a crap what you teach your kids in your province, it certainly doesn't affect their feelings towards the confederation. I don't know where you got that from :huh: Les deux solitudes...
But thanks again for telling us how we feel, what rankles us and what our "anxieties" are. Some things never change :lol:
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 06, 2009, 03:17:39 PM
Or the fact that the doctor in question is an idiot.
Well, we know that, since he didn't speak English. Any college-educated person living today (not just in Canada - where English is an official language - but pretty much anywhere in the world), especially in a profession like medicine, which relies on peer review and being up-to-date with international developments, who doesn't have at least a rudimentary knowledge of English must be an idiot.
Quote from: Martinus on September 06, 2009, 03:16:08 PM
So your argument essentially is that it is fine for the society to give one group of people (identified by an arbitrary characteristic) special privileges and/or respect (which involves everybody else being required to devote certain resources - such as study time in this case - to accommodate such privileges) - and at the same time deny such privileges to other groups of people - not because this is efficient, fair or deserved but because this has traditionally been so?
That is a pure definition of aristocracy.
You have a strange definition of aristocracy. Why weren't Poles glad to have to learn Russian or German in school and to forget about Polish ?
If you had called it tradition I would have been fine with it. In this case, no one is depriving anyone of anything. There is time alloted for the learning of a second language and that language has been picked by the State as part of its national identity, because the right to learn a second language of your chosing doesn't exist. Just like the language of teaching in any country I am aware of is usually decided by the State if you chose to go to public school - bar some specific exceptions. Just like we decide to cling to British Parliamentary tradition to the detriment of American or French Presidential / Republican tradition and no one is out there claiming the American or French newcomers are being unfairly repressed in their political leanings while we unjustly favour citizens of British descent.
Quote from: Martinus on September 06, 2009, 03:24:22 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 06, 2009, 03:17:39 PM
Or the fact that the doctor in question is an idiot.
Well, we know that, since he didn't speak English. Any college-educated person living today (not just in Canada - where English it is an official language - but pretty much anywhere in the world) who doesn't have at least a rudimentary knowledge of English must be an idiot.
Of course he knows english you moron. Most medical studies are in english. He probably didn't want to speak english because he was being a prick, or the author is a liar.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 06, 2009, 03:26:14 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 06, 2009, 03:24:22 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 06, 2009, 03:17:39 PM
Or the fact that the doctor in question is an idiot.
Well, we know that, since he didn't speak English. Any college-educated person living today (not just in Canada - where English it is an official language - but pretty much anywhere in the world) who doesn't have at least a rudimentary knowledge of English must be an idiot.
Of course he knows english you moron. Most medical studies are in english. He probably didn't want to speak english because he was being a prick, or the author is a liar.
LOL this is rich. Listen, cretin, you said yourself:
QuoteSo? What's your conclusion?
Mine is that the doctor either had a real limited grasp of english [...]
So what is it? Are you a moron like me for thinking the doctor has no substantial knowledge of English, or are you just trying to excuse this inexcusable behaviour for which the guy should have been fired, because of your anti-English chauvinism?
I don't think you know what "either" means.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 06, 2009, 03:31:35 PM
I don't think you know what "either" means.
It's funny. First you said that either he doesn't know English or is a prick. Then you say that
of course he knows English and is a prick. These two statements are contradictory.
I don't even know why I am typing this.
In the future, please don't then :)
Quote from: Zoupa on September 06, 2009, 03:37:27 PM
In the future, please don't then :)
You are arrogant and unintelligent. You personify perfectly the problem people have with the francophones.
ok.
Quote from: Martinus on September 06, 2009, 03:38:08 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 06, 2009, 03:37:27 PM
In the future, please don't then :)
You are arrogant and unintelligent. You personify perfectly the problem people have with the francophones.
Talk about stereotyping, you're doing that same thing that Neil does when he says you " personify perfectly the problem people have with gays".
Two rights don't make a wrong.
Kick each other's asses.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 06, 2009, 03:43:46 PM
Talk about stereotyping, you're doing that same thing that Neil does when he says you " personify perfectly the problem people have with gays".
Some stereotypes contain more truth than others.
Quote from: Martinus on September 06, 2009, 03:38:08 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 06, 2009, 03:37:27 PM
In the future, please don't then :)
You are arrogant and unintelligent. You personify perfectly the problem people have with the francophones.
Having met Zoups I have to politely disagree.
Everyone on Languish is unintelligent except me.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 06, 2009, 03:02:50 PM
Pros and cons of bilingualism should also be taking a back seat here. There's a claim that the person in question was heard speaking English and then pretending not to understand to avoid answering a direct question. If part of that person's job is to answer question, then their sudden loss of ability to speak the language should lead to an equally sudden loss of the job.
:rolleyes:
He's a doctor, not a customer service rep.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 06, 2009, 03:57:50 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 06, 2009, 03:02:50 PM
Pros and cons of bilingualism should also be taking a back seat here. There's a claim that the person in question was heard speaking English and then pretending not to understand to avoid answering a direct question. If part of that person's job is to answer question, then their sudden loss of ability to speak the language should lead to an equally sudden loss of the job.
:rolleyes:
He's a doctor, not a customer service rep.
And a francophone doctor at that. The kid should be happy they didn't pump him up with HIV-infected blood. :P
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 06, 2009, 03:43:46 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 06, 2009, 03:38:08 PM
You are arrogant and unintelligent. You personify perfectly the problem people have with the francophones.
Talk about stereotyping, you're doing that same thing that Neil does when he says you " personify perfectly the problem people have with gays".
You should both use possess instead of have. :P
Quote from: Syt on September 06, 2009, 03:49:07 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 06, 2009, 03:38:08 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 06, 2009, 03:37:27 PM
In the future, please don't then :)
You are arrogant and unintelligent. You personify perfectly the problem people have with the francophones.
Having met Zoups I have to politely disagree.
Them beers were good :hug:
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 06, 2009, 01:39:11 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2009, 11:42:31 AM
The issue is whether certain citizen's ancestors are to be honoured into perpetuity over other citizens' ancestors.
If you want to put it that way, suit yourself.
But we already had this conversation, and I answered, to put it simply: yes - that's the reason we are under a British Parliamentary System, studying Common Law and Code Civil and not Ukranian Customs or organizing our bureaucracy around Confucean Ideals. Not because of the superiority of the British system, nor because of a conscious choice or perceived utility of any of those institutions. (*cue for Neil's trolling*).
This is not to say that any of these things are or should be unchanging. But Canada is neither a blank page nor an always changing country and in that regard, in a society which looks to «Rule of Law» as a guiding principle, then, yes, the character that helped structure and build these institutions which frame our everyday lives are French and British - not Ukranian or Chinese. I do not think it is outlandish or xenophobic to recognize it.
Countries are products of their history, and in Canada's case, its institutional history is both French and English.
Again: I do not care about utility. Some choices have to be about ideas and values. It is - or should be - about values and the idea of the country we'd like to shape.
And I would not disagree that persons are shaped by their history. However, your argument appears to be an appeal to conservative traditonalism: the countries' "institutional history" as you put it. That is not an ineffective argument, and as you put it it is a similar argument to that put forward for the common law.
However, as you well know, official bilingualism is a
modern innovation, younger in point of fact than I am: it came into effect in the 1970s. Prior to that, it was French "institutions" that were maintained in Quebec and (partly) New Brunswick, but certainly not in most of English Canada. It isn't 'traditional'. Indeed, it was the subject of some injustice to those French-speaking communities outside of Quebec that they were *not* "traditionally" accomodated.
We are not debating the merits of a conservative, traditional situation, but those of a quite radical innovation and attempt at social engineering - to impose holus-bolus an alien gloss on people whose ancestors did not share it, were not exept in the most tangental way affected by it, and who do in fact have their own culture and values that they appear to believe are worth something.
I would also disagree that the history of Canada has been shaped myopically by English and French alone. Surely the (yes) Ukranians that settled parts of the West, the Chinese that built the railways, the Native Canadians that were here before either French or English arrived, all had something to do with it, no? Why is
French given greater prominence in places where no-one speaks it, than any of these others?
In short, if it were not for the threat in the 1970s from seperatism, I suspect there would be no eternal, immutable Canadian "institution" of official bilingualsm. It is a 20th century phenominon, having (as you put it) little to do with utility. As for "ideals" and "values", what exact ideals and values are being honoured or supported by this policy, other than that some ancestries are more important than others? That the French people help to import the rule of law to a savage continent, and thus we should all attempt to learn it? I don't agree with such essentialism.
Quote from: Martinus on September 06, 2009, 03:16:08 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 06, 2009, 01:39:11 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2009, 11:42:31 AM
The issue is whether certain citizen's ancestors are to be honoured into perpetuity over other citizens' ancestors.
If you want to put it that way, suit yourself.
But we already had this conversation, and I answered, to put it simply: yes - that's the reason we are under a British Parliamentary System, studying Common Law and Code Civil and not Ukranian Customs or organizing our bureaucracy around Confucean Ideals. Not because of the superiority of the British system, nor because of a conscious choice or perceived utility of any of those institutions. (*cue for Neil's trolling*).
This is not to say that any of these things are or should be unchanging. But Canada is neither a blank page nor an always changing country and in that regard, in a society which looks to «Rule of Law» as a guiding principle, then, yes, the character that helped structure and build these institutions which frame our everyday lives are French and British - not Ukranian or Chinese. I do not think it is outlandish or xenophobic to recognize it.
Countries are products of their history, and in Canada's case, its institutional history is both French and English.
Again: I do not care about utility. Some choices have to be about ideas and values. It is - or should be - about values and the idea of the country we'd like to shape.
So your argument essentially is that it is fine for the society to give one group of people (identified by an arbitrary characteristic) special privileges and/or respect (which involves everybody else being required to devote certain resources - such as study time in this case - to accommodate such privileges) - and at the same time deny such privileges to other groups of people - not because this is efficient, fair or deserved but because this has traditionally been so?
That is a pure definition of aristocracy.
... and it hasn't "traditionally been so". The policy isn't one established hundreds of years ago, but in the 1960s and 1970s.
While there existed some (limited) provisions for laws to be published and federal debates to be held in both languages, "official bilingualsim" as we know and love it today is, as with many other innovations good and bad, a child of the late 60s early 70s, with the "Official Languages Act" passed in 1969, and amendments and other acts passed in the 70s through early 80s (with the Charter of Rights) confirming the same.
Ironically enough, at the same time as Canada was moving to "official bilingualism", Quebec was moving in the other direction - to "official unilingualsim" under French alone, causing repeated confrontations with the Supreme Court of the constitutionality of its attempts to force people to speak, use French, and educate their kids in French whether they want to or not.
Quote
1974: The Liberal government of Robert Bourassa enacts The Official Language Act (better-known as "Bill 22"), making Quebec officially unilingual, with French as its only official language. English retains a proscribed legal status.
1977: The Parti Québécois government of René Lévesque enacts the Charter of the French Language (better known as "Bill 101"), banning the use of all languages but French on commercial signs, requiring that French be the language of the workplace, and placing further restrictions on the ability of parents to place their children in English-language schools.
1979: Attorney General of Quebec v. Blaikie (No. 1): The Supreme Court of Canada rules that the provision in Quebec's Charter of the French Language, requiring that all provincial laws to be enacted only in French violates section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867. The Court finds that section 133, which required that all Acts be printed and published in both French and English, applies to all legislation and regulations.
1981: Quebec (Attorney General) v. Blaikie (No. 2): Following an application from the Quebec government to determine whether there exist any exceptions to the requirement, under section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, that all laws be printed and published in English as well as in French, the Supreme Court of Canada rules that the section 133 requirements do not extend to laws enacted by Quebec municipalities.
1982: The government of René Lévesque enacts a law inserting the "Notwithstanding Clause" into all existing Quebec legislation, thereby causing the Charter of Rights to be largely inoperative in Quebec. However, the Lévesque government is unable to prevent section 23 of the Charter from applying to Quebec, as the "Notwithstanding Clause" has been drafted to apply only to certain parts of the Charter, excluding this part.
1984: Attorney General of Quebec v. Quebec Protestant School Boards: The Supreme Court of Canada rules that as a result of the recent adoption of the Charter of Rights, it is no longer constitutional for the Charter of the French Language to deny an education in English to the child of any parent who was educated in English in any Canadian province (provincial law had previously permitted this only for children of parents educated in English in Quebec).
1986: MacDonald v. City of Montreal: The Supreme Court of Canada rules that Section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867 establishes only a negative right to use either official language in the Quebec legislature and its institutions, and does not extend to a right to have municipal services in English as well as French.
1987: The 1982 law inserting the Notwithstanding Clause into all Quebec laws is allowed to lapse by the Liberal government of Robert Bourassa, and all Quebec laws therefore become subject to the Charter of Rights.
1988: Ford v. Quebec (A.G.): The Supreme Court of Canada rules that the commercial sign law provisions of Bill 101, are unconstitutional. The Quebec government reacts by An Act to Amend the Charter of the French Language (better known as "Bill 178"), which re-enacts the unconstitutional provisions under the authority of the "Notwithstanding Clause".
1988: Devine v. Quebec (Attorney General): The Supreme Court of Canada rules that it would be a constitutionally permissible restriction on freedom of speech for the Quebec government to require that French be "markedly predominant" on commercial signs, as long as other languages are not actually banned.
1993: The Quebec National Assembly enacts An Act to Amend the Charter of the French Language (better known as "Bill 86"), amending the sign law to bring it into conformity with the Supreme Court rulings in Ford v. Quebec (A.G.) and Devine v. Quebec (A.G.), by allowing other languages on commercial signs, subject to French being "markedly predominant".
1993: McIntyre v. Canada: A human rights tribunal of the United Nations finds Quebec's restrictions on commercial signs in languages other than French to be an unwarranted restriction, under the terms of articles 2, 19, 26 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on freedom of expression in the pursuit of a legitimate objective (strengthening the position of the French language). The ruling is not enforceable.
1997: An amendment to the Constitution provides for linguistic rather than confessional (Catholic and Protestant) school boards in Quebec.
2002: A.G. of Quebec (Procureur Général) c. John Reid et Frances Muriel Reid: The Quebec Court of Appeal rules that the Quebec government cannot require Quebec-based websites to conform with provincial language law, because the internet falls under federal jurisdiction.
2005: The Supreme Court of Canada rules that the interpretation of major part requirement in the Charter of the French Language, limiting access to English-language public education, violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court does not strike down the law, but presents the province with a set of criteria for bringing the law into conformity with the Charter of Rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_official_languages_policy_in_Canada#Official_languages_policy_and_legislation_relating_to_the_Government_of_Canada
That's a wiki site, but here is the official Quebec language laws on the gov't website.
http://www.olf.gouv.qc.ca/english/charter/
Here are the hoops you have to go through in order to have your kid taught in English:
http://www.olf.gouv.qc.ca/english/regulations/reg_instruction.html
I'm not sure how anyone can justify, at the very same time, supporting "official bilingualism" for English-speaking Canada and "official unilingualism' for Quebec on "traditional" grounds (or indeed on
any grounds).
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2009, 11:23:27 AM
French is more of a regional language in Canada - a very large country indeed. While there are large French-speaking minorities outside of Quebec (particularly in some parts of Northern Ontario, the Metis in Manitoba, and New Brunswick), in vast parts of Canada hardly anyone speaks it. In Southern Ontario and in British Columbia, Chinese would be considerably more useful than French; in Saskatchewan, Ukranian. Why not have kids speaking these languages (often their own ancestral languages) instead, if there are only resources to teach one additional language?
I dunno.
In part I am quite the hater of French. I wish I could have studied anything else in school. Its a horrible and difficult language with little logic to be found. Its just...argh! I need a time machine to tell my 11 year old self the stuff he's heard about French being easier and better than German is wrong.
But...learning French is more than just learning a language. In learning French you also learn a lot about English I find. So much of our vocabulary draws from there.
It also takes you close to latin without actually wasting your time learning latin.
As long as they don't claim to be French they can do as they please.
Quote from: Tyr on September 06, 2009, 04:28:18 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2009, 11:23:27 AM
French is more of a regional language in Canada - a very large country indeed. While there are large French-speaking minorities outside of Quebec (particularly in some parts of Northern Ontario, the Metis in Manitoba, and New Brunswick), in vast parts of Canada hardly anyone speaks it. In Southern Ontario and in British Columbia, Chinese would be considerably more useful than French; in Saskatchewan, Ukranian. Why not have kids speaking these languages (often their own ancestral languages) instead, if there are only resources to teach one additional language?
I dunno.
In part I am quite the hater of French. I wish I could have studied anything else in school. Its a horrible and difficult language with little logic to be found. Its just...argh! I need a time machine to tell my 11 year old self the stuff he's heard about French being easier and better than German is wrong.
But...learning French is more than just learning a language. In learning French you also learn a lot about English I find. So much of our vocabulary draws from there.
It also takes you close to latin without actually wasting your time learning latin.
I have no problems with learning French as a matter of utility. But, as Oex acknowledges (and what is in fact the case) the language policies of this country have noting whatsoever to do with utility - it is a matter of political ideology and nationalist social engineering. That I do have a problem with, and I'm very suprised BB approves of it.
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2009, 04:24:48 PM
Here are the hoops you have to go through in order to have your kid taught in English:
http://www.olf.gouv.qc.ca/english/regulations/reg_instruction.html
No need to make it overly complicated with your lawyer talk. The "hoops" are these:
1- If you have money, put your kid in a private english school.
2- If you don't have money, you can put your kid in a public anglo school if you went to an anglo school yourself or if you're from another province.
ZOMG QC R FROG NAZIS!!!1111one!!
As you can see, the policy is geared towards oversea immigrants. We want them to speak french since, you know, 90% of us are francos.
Don't really get the anglocanuck outrage over this policy. Never have.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 06, 2009, 04:36:02 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2009, 04:24:48 PM
Here are the hoops you have to go through in order to have your kid taught in English:
http://www.olf.gouv.qc.ca/english/regulations/reg_instruction.html
No need to make it overly complicated with your lawyer talk. The "hoops" are these:
1- If you have money, put your kid in a private english school.
2- If you don't have money, you can put your kid in a public anglo school if you went to an anglo school yourself or if you're from another province.
ZOMG QC R FROG NAZIS!!!1111one!!
As you can see, the policy is geared towards oversea immigrants. We want them to speak french since, you know, 90% of us are francos.
Don't really get the anglocanuck outrage over this policy. Never have.
What about immigrants from the USA?
Quote from: Zoupa on September 06, 2009, 04:36:02 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2009, 04:24:48 PM
Here are the hoops you have to go through in order to have your kid taught in English:
http://www.olf.gouv.qc.ca/english/regulations/reg_instruction.html
No need to make it overly complicated with your lawyer talk. The "hoops" are these:
1- If you have money, put your kid in a private english school.
2- If you don't have money, you can put your kid in a public anglo school if you went to an anglo school yourself or if you're from another province.
ZOMG QC R FROG NAZIS!!!1111one!!
As you can see, the policy is geared towards oversea immigrants. We want them to speak french since, you know, 90% of us are francos.
Don't really get the anglocanuck outrage over this policy. Never have.
I can well believe you don't understand it. If you did, you'd share it. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2009, 04:40:59 PM
Quote
No need to make it overly complicated with your lawyer talk. The "hoops" are these:
1- If you have money, put your kid in a private english school.
2- If you don't have money, you can put your kid in a public anglo school if you went to an anglo school yourself or if you're from another province.
ZOMG QC R FROG NAZIS!!!1111one!!
As you can see, the policy is geared towards oversea immigrants. We want them to speak french since, you know, 90% of us are francos.
Don't really get the anglocanuck outrage over this policy. Never have.
I can well believe you don't understand it. If you did, you'd share it. ;)
Ha ha.
So what would you have us do exactly?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 06, 2009, 04:39:52 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 06, 2009, 04:36:02 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2009, 04:24:48 PM
Here are the hoops you have to go through in order to have your kid taught in English:
http://www.olf.gouv.qc.ca/english/regulations/reg_instruction.html
No need to make it overly complicated with your lawyer talk. The "hoops" are these:
1- If you have money, put your kid in a private english school.
2- If you don't have money, you can put your kid in a public anglo school if you went to an anglo school yourself or if you're from another province.
ZOMG QC R FROG NAZIS!!!1111one!!
As you can see, the policy is geared towards oversea immigrants. We want them to speak french since, you know, 90% of us are francos.
Don't really get the anglocanuck outrage over this policy. Never have.
What about immigrants from the USA?
What do you think, timmy?
Quote from: Zoupa on September 06, 2009, 04:42:55 PM
Ha ha.
So what would you have us do exactly?
Why not allow people to choose for themselves?
I know it's a radical notion, but it appears to be working well everywhere outside of Quebec so far.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 06, 2009, 04:43:30 PM
What do you think, timmy?
He thinks Americans are
special.
Kind of endearing, in a way. :D
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2009, 04:45:44 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 06, 2009, 04:42:55 PM
Ha ha.
So what would you have us do exactly?
Why not allow people to choose for themselves?
I know it's a radical notion, but it appears to be working well everywhere outside of Quebec so far.
Like where?
You want the state to provide free public education in every language on the planet? :huh:
Quote from: Zoupa on September 06, 2009, 04:43:30 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 06, 2009, 04:39:52 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 06, 2009, 04:36:02 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2009, 04:24:48 PM
Here are the hoops you have to go through in order to have your kid taught in English:
http://www.olf.gouv.qc.ca/english/regulations/reg_instruction.html
No need to make it overly complicated with your lawyer talk. The "hoops" are these:
1- If you have money, put your kid in a private english school.
2- If you don't have money, you can put your kid in a public anglo school if you went to an anglo school yourself or if you're from another province.
ZOMG QC R FROG NAZIS!!!1111one!!
As you can see, the policy is geared towards oversea immigrants. We want them to speak french since, you know, 90% of us are francos.
Don't really get the anglocanuck outrage over this policy. Never have.
What about immigrants from the USA?
What do you think, timmy?
I assume you force them to rot in Francophone torment.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 06, 2009, 04:48:22 PM
I assume you force them to rot in Francophone torment.
Presumably they don't have to choose to live there...
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 06, 2009, 04:48:22 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 06, 2009, 04:43:30 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 06, 2009, 04:39:52 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 06, 2009, 04:36:02 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2009, 04:24:48 PM
Here are the hoops you have to go through in order to have your kid taught in English:
http://www.olf.gouv.qc.ca/english/regulations/reg_instruction.html
No need to make it overly complicated with your lawyer talk. The "hoops" are these:
1- If you have money, put your kid in a private english school.
2- If you don't have money, you can put your kid in a public anglo school if you went to an anglo school yourself or if you're from another province.
ZOMG QC R FROG NAZIS!!!1111one!!
As you can see, the policy is geared towards oversea immigrants. We want them to speak french since, you know, 90% of us are francos.
Don't really get the anglocanuck outrage over this policy. Never have.
What about immigrants from the USA?
What do you think, timmy?
I assume you force them to rot in Francophone torment.
hmm, no. You just need money :huh:
It's funny how you anglophones think. Go to Germany and ask for free public education in english. You wouldn't want your kids to rot in germanophone torment :frusty:
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2009, 04:03:35 PM
However, as you well know, official bilingualism is a modern innovation, younger in point of fact than I am: it came into effect in the 1970s. Prior to that, it was French "institutions" that were maintained in Quebec and (partly) New Brunswick, but certainly not in most of English Canada. It isn't 'traditional'. Indeed, it was the subject of some injustice to those French-speaking communities outside of Quebec that they were *not* "traditionally" accomodated.
I beg to differ. The bilingualism debate is as old as Canada and therefore not quite radical. It started in 1792. It is the first debate in «Canadian» parliamentary history: what should be the language of the debates in the Assembly ? What should be the language of criminal trials ? Many answers were provided along the years, each contributing to the current levels of expectations and «Canadian» identity.
That is the inherent tension at the heart of it all. Do we take a narrow view that Canada is a bilingual country inasmuch as it has a Province whose rights are guaranteed by the Constitution within its folds ? Or is this representative of something greater ? (Founding Peoples and all that). Unless you want to segregate Quebec history into a single province's own history, you are forced to take into account that all these debates that took place in the past, surrounding the Confederations were forced to take into account the fact that there was a sizeable minority of the country's population that spoke French.
If we take the narrow, legalistic view, of course, we will find that Canada is a country as far as the Constitution makes it, no more no less. I think that tends to limit the meaning of whatever an independant Canada is supposed to be, a collection of individuals united by institutions that happened to be there for no reason.
I never got why this assertion of Canada-as-a-bilingual-country is supposed to reflect badly or unfairly upon any other culture within the country. Are German-Americans protesting because they are studying the Pilgrims or the Natives and not the history of Saxony or Prussia ? Are they complaining that they are unfairly focusing upon people that are not part of their ancestors, in a language that was not that of their ancestors ? That has nothing to do with the worth of their ancestor's culture, nor with the worth of their contribution but with the national identity of the US.
QuoteAs for "ideals" and "values", what exact ideals and values are being honoured or supported by this policy, other than that some ancestries are more important than others? That the French people help to import the rule of law to a savage continent, and thus we should all attempt to learn it? I don't agree with such essentialism
Not at all. I think «Canada-as-a-bilingual-country» is a value in itself (I mean, Canada has erected a doughnut chain to the status of national symbol...).
This is why I said you are much more of a presentist than I am. I mean, surely the democratic values of Canada could be served by any other legal or political system of the Western World. Why are we clingning to the British one ? Is it because British people helped import the rule of law to a savage continent that we should all attempt to work within it ? You obviously are turning this argument into a imperial caricature so that no one could agree with it, but it the end, it empties the country Canada of any heritage save the one that is supposed to be represented here and now, through laws and personal preferences. Or rather, this is a way in which the question is never adressed. Why should it be ? Things are because they are - because our legal system and demographic pressures ensures conformity with past traditions, but no one asks where these traditions are coming from. Even the multiculturalism the superiority of which you proclaim is a much younger institution that you project backwards, as if all past choices were the result of perfect individual preferences.
We've succeeded at providing an ex post facto legal-rational explanation for our democratic system but outside of this there are no reasons why we do any of the *other* stuff we do. What makes Canada Canada ? What makes the US the US if all institutions are grounded into the same basic values ? In this scheme, culture becomes the fluff, the superfluous that is artificially grafted upon the basics, the important, the fundamental. I don't suscribe to this reading.
C'est peine perdue, l'ami.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 06, 2009, 04:47:19 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2009, 04:45:44 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 06, 2009, 04:42:55 PM
Ha ha.
So what would you have us do exactly?
Why not allow people to choose for themselves?
I know it's a radical notion, but it appears to be working well everywhere outside of Quebec so far.
Like where?
You want the state to provide free public education in every language on the planet? :huh:
No, only those language or cultural groups which have a sufficient numbers of parents wanting them.
In Ontario, for historic reasons, this has always been either English or French (or English or French
Catholic). As far as I'm aware, the gov't doesn't
force parents to pick the English one unless they can meet the right criteria.
There is, however, no good reason why
funding should only go to these particular cultural groups, as opposed to any other (for example, why there should exist a seperate public Catholic education, but not a seperate public Jewish education). There does exist a Jewish school system, but it is privately funded.
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2009, 05:08:50 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 06, 2009, 04:47:19 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2009, 04:45:44 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 06, 2009, 04:42:55 PM
Ha ha.
So what would you have us do exactly?
Why not allow people to choose for themselves?
I know it's a radical notion, but it appears to be working well everywhere outside of Quebec so far.
Like where?
You want the state to provide free public education in every language on the planet? :huh:
No, only those language or cultural groups which have a sufficient numbers of parents wanting them.
In Ontario, for historic reasons, this has always been either English or French (or English or French Catholic). As far as I'm aware, the gov't doesn't force parents to pick the English one unless they can meet the right criteria.
There is, however, no good reason why funding should only go to these particular cultural groups, as opposed to any other (for example, why there should exist a seperate public Catholic education, but not a seperate public Jewish education). There does exist a Jewish school system, but it is privately funded.
What's sufficient numbers?
As i've explained above, there is a publicly funded anglophone school network in qc. For "historic" reasons, as you say, we allowed, in our magnanimity, old anglos to keep their schools :zoupa:
Nobody is "forcing" anyone to go to any school. The criteria is listed above. They are not unreasonable.
Qc is unilingual francophone. I know it's hard to accept, but it's a fact. It's always been a fact, for four hundred years. I certainly don't subscribe to the multicultural aspect that you're so in love with (i'm a real frog, remember? School is a place for education AND integration into society).
I also disagree with public funding of any kind for "confesionnal" or religious schools. That's just dumb imo.
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 06, 2009, 04:58:27 PM
I beg to differ. The bilingualism debate is as old as Canada and therefore not quite radical. It started in 1792. It is the first debate in «Canadian» parliamentary history: what should be the language of the debates in the Assembly ? What should be the language of criminal trials ? Many answers were provided along the years, each contributing to the current levels of expectations and «Canadian» identity.
And I beg to differ with your differing. If you see my subsequent post, you will see an admittedly crude timeline of the relevent events. While there was protections for federal debates and trials in the federal jurisdiction (which as you may know are a tiny and specialized subset of trials in Canada), both sensible enough where the two major geopolitical divisions mostly spoke different languages, "Official bilingualism" as we know it was a creature of the late '60s early '70s.
QuoteThat is the inherent tension at the heart of it all. Do we take a narrow view that Canada is a bilingual country inasmuch as it has a Province whose rights are guaranteed by the Constitution within its folds ? Or is this representative of something greater ? (Founding Peoples and all that). Unless you want to segregate Quebec history into a single province's own history, you are forced to take into account that all these debates that took place in the past, surrounding the Confederations were forced to take into account the fact that there was a sizeable minority of the country's population that spoke French.
I see no problem with taking the "narrow view". Are we to take the narrow view that Canada was historically formed in the territories of the First Nations, or should we take the greater view and honour their memory eternally by making our children learn ... Algonkian?
QuoteIf we take the narrow, legalistic view, of course, we will find that Canada is a country as far as the Constitution makes it, no more no less. I think that tends to limit the meaning of whatever an independant Canada is supposed to be, a collection of individuals united by institutions that happened to be there for no reason.
I never got why this assertion of Canada-as-a-bilingual-country is supposed to reflect badly or unfairly upon any other culture within the country. Are German-Americans protesting because they are studying the Pilgrims or the Natives and not the history of Saxony or Prussia ? Are they complaining that they are unfairly focusing upon people that are not part of their ancestors, in a language that was not that of their ancestors ? That has nothing to do with the worth of their ancestor's culture, nor with the worth of their contribution but with the national identity of the US.
No-one is making the children of German-Americans learn the
language of said Natives.
QuoteNot at all. I think «Canada-as-a-bilingual-country» is a value in itself (I mean, Canada has erected a doughnut chain to the status of national symbol...).
It's good because it is
symbolic?
What then is "symbolized" by the fact that while English Canada by and large has official bilingualism foisted upon it, Quebec has opted out of the "bilingual" constitutional protections and is officially unilingual?
QuoteThis is why I said you are much more of a presentist than I am. I mean, surely the democratic values of Canada could be served by any other legal or political system of the Western World. Why are we clingning to the British one ? Is it because British people helped import the rule of law to a savage continent that we should all attempt to work within it ? You obviously are turning this argument into a imperial caricature so that no one could agree with it, but it the end, it empties the country Canada of any heritage save the one that is supposed to be represented here and now, through laws and personal preferences. Or rather, this is a way in which the question is never adressed. Why should it be ? Things are because they are - because our legal system and demographic pressures ensures conformity with past traditions, but no one asks where these traditions are coming from. Even the multiculturalism the superiority of which you proclaim is a much younger institution that you project backwards, as if all past choices were the result of perfect individual preferences.
Again, this is a perfectly valid argument for traditionalist conservatism. Again, it is not applicaple to a social policy as young as official bilingualism, which is a radical and not conservative measure. Unlike your chosen example of the common law, it did not develop organically.
If I was to choose between two visions - the bilingual one and the multicultural one - I'd unhesitatingly choose the latter. Official bilingualism has proven as futile as Canute attempting to hold back the waves.
QuoteWe've succeeded at providing an ex post facto legal-rational explanation for our democratic system but outside of this there are no reasons why we do any of the *other* stuff we do. What makes Canada Canada ? What makes the US the US if all institutions are grounded into the same basic values ? In this scheme, culture becomes the fluff, the superfluous that is artificially grafted upon the basics, the important, the fundamental. I don't suscribe to this reading.
We don't disagree about the importance of culture. Where we disagree is on whose should be perpetuated. In my opinion, it should be a matter of bottom-up choice, not top-down fiat.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 06, 2009, 05:17:51 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2009, 05:08:50 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 06, 2009, 04:47:19 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2009, 04:45:44 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 06, 2009, 04:42:55 PM
Ha ha.
So what would you have us do exactly?
Why not allow people to choose for themselves?
I know it's a radical notion, but it appears to be working well everywhere outside of Quebec so far.
Like where?
You want the state to provide free public education in every language on the planet? :huh:
No, only those language or cultural groups which have a sufficient numbers of parents wanting them.
In Ontario, for historic reasons, this has always been either English or French (or English or French Catholic). As far as I'm aware, the gov't doesn't force parents to pick the English one unless they can meet the right criteria.
There is, however, no good reason why funding should only go to these particular cultural groups, as opposed to any other (for example, why there should exist a seperate public Catholic education, but not a seperate public Jewish education). There does exist a Jewish school system, but it is privately funded.
What's sufficient numbers?
As i've explained above, there is a publicly funded anglophone school network in qc. For "historic" reasons, as you say, we allowed, in our magnanimity, old anglos to keep their schools :zoupa:
Nobody is "forcing" anyone to go to any school. The criteria is listed above. They are not unreasonable.
Qc is unilingual francophone. I know it's hard to accept, but it's a fact. It's always been a fact, for four hundred years. I certainly don't subscribe to the multicultural aspect that you're so in love with (i'm a real frog, remember? School is a place for education AND integration into society).
I also disagree with public funding of any kind for "confesionnal" or religious schools. That's just dumb imo.
Sufficient to justify hiring teachers to teach on the public dime.
I don't disagree with you on the bit about "confessional" schools, I merely point out that if one group has 'em funded, it is unfair not to fund others - if the numbers justify it of course.
I disagree with this part:
QuoteNobody is "forcing" anyone to go to any school.
... as demonstratably untrue. If you are the child of immigrants, you are indeed "forced" into one school system and not the other.
No. You can choose the private english school.
I can see your point of view from your responses to Oex and I. I don't know why you care though. Nobody's rights are being trampled. Anglos can still go to anglo schools.
New immigrants can go to public french or private english. They're not complaining btw, the anglo ROC is always the one bringing it up. It's not like they're not aware before landing that qc is francophone. I'm an immigrant, I've seen the questionnaires, forms and brochures. Nobody feels cheated once they arrive. They know the deal and they still come. We don't have an immigration shortage.
You're fighting for the "right" of people perfectly fine with the system in place :huh:
And btw your thing about "it should be a matter of bottom-up choice, not top-down fiat" is real easy to say when you perfectly well know that close to 100% of folks would choose anglophone schooling in your province/country, qc excluded.
When we're our own independant state, we'll go with that approach too :lol: Geez I wonder what the overwhlemingly francophone population will choose...
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2009, 04:45:44 PM
I know it's a radical notion, but it appears to be working well everywhere outside of Quebec so far.
Choose which language their children's school is in? Is that really that common in Anglo Canada?
Huh, we have people with similar ideas in out country. Typically we call them "Dumbasses". Is there a french word for that?
We don't do exclusively Spanish public education here in the states, but we do have modified "ESL" (English as a Second Language) programs for students who are not native speakers. Would Quebec have something similar in the public school system?
Also, whether or not people are complaining doesn't mean it's not a violation of rights- it's putting cultural and financial obstacles in the way of education for students who are not native speakers of French. It might be considered a non-issue if the separatists got their way and Quebec was a separate nation, but it's part of a larger nation that's predominantly English-speaking, so the obstacle is really inexcusable.
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2009, 05:34:41 PM
... as demonstratably untrue. If you are the child of immigrants, you are indeed "forced" into one school system and not the other.
If you go to a school in this country and you're an immigrant then your children will be taught in English. If there's sufficient numbers a team of specialists in your language may be hired by the school but the language of instruction won't change.
The only exception to that are the people who choose to opt out of our public system. For example the Lycee Charles de Gaulle, international schools and European schools.
What's so bad about going to a Francophone school when you're from an Anglo home? I don't understand the problem.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 06, 2009, 04:48:22 PM
I assume you force them to rot in Francophone torment.
Trick question. There's no reason for an American to move to Quebec. They made the choice that they were going to be hostile to international business with their language laws.
In a way, the preeminance of Toronto and Ontario is entirely the fault of the bigots of Quebec.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 06, 2009, 05:54:31 PM
What's so bad about going to a Francophone school when you're from an Anglo home? I don't understand the problem.
Can't understand what the teacher is saying.
Previously I was opposed but now I'm inclined to agree with the Frogs.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 06, 2009, 05:54:31 PM
What's so bad about going to a Francophone school when you're from an Anglo home? I don't understand the problem.
It turns people into me.
That, and it completely devalues education.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 06, 2009, 05:56:22 PM
Can't understand what the teacher is saying.
So they get some support, like Bengalis do in this country. Kids learn languages very quickly if they're immersed in it. Most of them will do fine.
This has not always been the case here.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 06, 2009, 05:49:32 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2009, 04:45:44 PM
I know it's a radical notion, but it appears to be working well everywhere outside of Quebec so far.
Choose which language their children's school is in? Is that really that common in Anglo Canada?
From the choice of "English or French", yes it is. In fact, in Ontario you have
four choices, as the Catholics get their own publicly funded schools.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 06, 2009, 05:54:31 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2009, 05:34:41 PM
... as demonstratably untrue. If you are the child of immigrants, you are indeed "forced" into one school system and not the other.
If you go to a school in this country and you're an immigrant then your children will be taught in English. If there's sufficient numbers a team of specialists in your language may be hired by the school but the language of instruction won't change.
The only exception to that are the people who choose to opt out of our public system. For example the Lycee Charles de Gaulle, international schools and European schools.
What's so bad about going to a Francophone school when you're from an Anglo home? I don't understand the problem.
There is no problem, if that's what the parents want.
The "problem" is making it mandatory, when the parents in point of fact wish their kids to be taught in English and English schools already exist - and they are merely
prevented by law from attending them
because of some social-engineering policy.
The situation would be comparable to if an entire Gallic school system existed, and everyone unable to "prove" English ethnic identity was required to be educated in Gallic instead of English, even though the parents
want their kids to be educated in English and there was no lack of English schools (and some lucky parents were 'eligible' by ancestry to send their kids there).
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2009, 06:08:52 PM
There is no problem, if that's what the parents want.
The "problem" is making it mandatory, when the parents in point of fact wish their kids to be taught in English and English schools already exist - and they are merely prevented by law from attending them because of some social-engineering policy.
Link?
I find it hard to believe, with the information they are given before even applying to immigrate to qc, that they would wish for their kids to go to school in English. That's what beautiful, multicultural Toronto is for.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 06, 2009, 06:15:44 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2009, 06:08:52 PM
There is no problem, if that's what the parents want.
The "problem" is making it mandatory, when the parents in point of fact wish their kids to be taught in English and English schools already exist - and they are merely prevented by law from attending them because of some social-engineering policy.
Link?
I provided the link to the actual law upthread.
Edit: are you claiming
no immigrants actually wants their kids taught English? If so, why does the law exist?
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2009, 06:16:57 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 06, 2009, 06:15:44 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2009, 06:08:52 PM
There is no problem, if that's what the parents want.
The "problem" is making it mandatory, when the parents in point of fact wish their kids to be taught in English and English schools already exist - and they are merely prevented by law from attending them because of some social-engineering policy.
Link?
I provided the link to the actual law upthread.
Really? You have links to surveys of recently arrived immigrants where they majoritarly declare they wish their kids could go to public english schools?
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2009, 06:16:57 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 06, 2009, 06:15:44 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2009, 06:08:52 PM
There is no problem, if that's what the parents want.
The "problem" is making it mandatory, when the parents in point of fact wish their kids to be taught in English and English schools already exist - and they are merely prevented by law from attending them because of some social-engineering policy.
Link?
I provided the link to the actual law upthread.
Edit: are you claiming no immigrants actually wants their kids taught English? If so, why does the law exist?
Taught english or taught in english?
Quote from: Zoupa on September 06, 2009, 06:15:44 PM
Link?
Why would anyone not want to be educated in English?
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2009, 06:08:52 PM
The "problem" is making it mandatory, when the parents in point of fact wish their kids to be taught in English and English schools already exist - and they are merely prevented by law from attending them because of some social-engineering policy.
The situation would be comparable to if an entire Gallic school system existed, and everyone unable to "prove" English ethnic identity was required to be educated in Gallic instead of English, even though the parents want their kids to be educated in English and there was no lack of English schools (and some lucky parents were 'eligible' by ancestry to send their kids there).
I don't think the problem is with making things mandatory I think it's with providing special provision for any linguistic group. I'd argue that all schools in Quebec probably should teach French with English as the standard second language - ideally with something else taught in English (like history or geography) as that helps language learning a lot. There should be special teachers to help recent immigrants. But that's it. And I think Anglo-Canada should be vice versa.
To me I think it would be absolutely ridiculous if English parents in Wales objected to Welsh-language instruction and demanded their own schools.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 06, 2009, 06:18:58 PM
Really? You have links to surveys of recently arrived immigrants where they majoritarly declare they wish their kids could go to public english schools?
And where's your non-anecdotal data about the percentage satisfied with the status quo?
The point is that once again, the province is out of line with its parent country, which should in fact be providing support for the English-speaking majority.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 06, 2009, 06:25:17 PM
The point is that once again, the province is out of line with its parent country, which should in fact be providing support for the English-speaking majority.
It's that kind of thinking that has been fueling the independance drive.
Maitre chez nous!
Quote from: Zoupa on September 06, 2009, 06:22:46 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 06, 2009, 06:21:55 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 06, 2009, 06:15:44 PM
Link?
Why would anyone not want to be educated in English?
Pretty much what Malthus is thinking.
Who posted this?
QuoteAnd btw your thing about "it should be a matter of bottom-up choice, not top-down fiat" is real easy to say when you perfectly well know that close to 100% of folks would choose anglophone schooling in your province/country, qc excluded.
@Malthus: Your post pretty much sums up the points of contention between us.
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2009, 05:30:11 PM
And I beg to differ with your differing. If you see my subsequent post, you will see an admittedly crude timeline of the relevent events. While there was protections for federal debates and trials in the federal jurisdiction (which as you may know are a tiny and specialized subset of trials in Canada), both sensible enough where the two major geopolitical divisions mostly spoke different languages, "Official bilingualism" as we know it was a creature of the late '60s early '70s.
Surely this is way to narrow a way to look at the issue. This would be like saying the Constitution is a recent problem in Canadian history because the Constitution is from 1982.
Bilingualism is a continuous issue and matter of debate in Canada, regardless of what the latest legal incarnation of the debate is. Canada's language of political debate discussion in 1792, Manitoba School in 1890, Ontario schools in 1890-1910... This was all about the relative place of both languages in Canada.
QuoteNo-one is making the children of German-Americans learn the language of said Natives.
You are going around the tradition issue by using the utilitarian argument, but use it selectively. Based on utilitarian readings, why hasn't Canada adopted the American legal system ? Much better for business, less hassle, a historical anomaly at last corrected. Why should we continue to honor the Loyalists ? So far, I have yet to see you tackle this issue. Is it completely irrelevant ? When should it come into play ? When shouldn't it ? Why legal system and not language.
If your answer is:
Quoteunlike your chosen example of the common law, it did not develop organically.
Then it is really disingenuous. Common Law did not develop organically. It came with the luggage of the British Army. It created lots of dissension and was politcally fought within Canada - so much so that a whole new province was carved out to stop the whining Anglos from complaining about Code Civil. It was imposed upon the Natives with guns. Nothing organic about that.
And this is what I think you dismiss out of hand, as Zoupa's answer demonstrate: power. Even if phrased with the same words, a sentence or a legal utterance has some very different impacts if it is in a hugely dominant context (where it reads like a grace), if it is in a hotly debated context (where it reads like a concession) or in a minority context (where it reads like an extorsion).
QuoteNot at all. I think «Canada-as-a-bilingual-country» is a value in itself (I mean, Canada has erected a doughnut chain to the status of national symbol...).
It's good because it is
symbolic?
What then is "symbolized" by the fact that while English Canada by and large has official bilingualism foisted upon it, Quebec has opted out of the "bilingual" constitutional protections and is officially unilingual? [/quote]
Yes, I think it is good because it is symbolic. Countries need to have symbolic capital if they expect people to pay taxes, respect law, create large communities of their own volition rather than through an intellectualized reading of dry legalese.
As to your second question, it symbolizes a failure, that is for sure. The question I repeatedly ask is whether that failure needs to be redressed or not. Because the answer is most of the time «no», I think it marks the death of «a certain idea of Canada».
Quote from: Zoupa on September 06, 2009, 06:18:58 PM
Really? You have links to surveys of recently arrived immigrants where they majoritarly declare they wish their kids could go to public english schools?
To repeat: If parents
didn't want their kids to go to English Schools --- why the laws?
It would seem to me to be pretty self-evident that the apparant insistance of the French-speaking population of Canada that the country as a whole be bi-lingual English/French but that Quebec itself be uni-lingual French is inherently unfair and rather hypocritical.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 06, 2009, 06:25:11 PM
To me I think it would be absolutely ridiculous if English parents in Wales objected to Welsh-language instruction and demanded their own schools.
Why wouldn't they? After all, the Welsh language isn't even twenty years old.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 06, 2009, 06:25:11 PMI'd argue that all schools in Quebec probably should teach French with English as the standard second language
That's the case. English is taught from 11 y.o. to 19. There is (or there was) also English Second Language - Language of Arts for those who do good in the regular ESL classes.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 06, 2009, 06:25:11 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2009, 06:08:52 PM
The "problem" is making it mandatory, when the parents in point of fact wish their kids to be taught in English and English schools already exist - and they are merely prevented by law from attending them because of some social-engineering policy.
The situation would be comparable to if an entire Gallic school system existed, and everyone unable to "prove" English ethnic identity was required to be educated in Gallic instead of English, even though the parents want their kids to be educated in English and there was no lack of English schools (and some lucky parents were 'eligible' by ancestry to send their kids there).
I don't think the problem is with making things mandatory I think it's with providing special provision for any linguistic group. I'd argue that all schools in Quebec probably should teach French with English as the standard second language - ideally with something else taught in English (like history or geography) as that helps language learning a lot. There should be special teachers to help recent immigrants. But that's it. And I think Anglo-Canada should be vice versa.
To me I think it would be absolutely ridiculous if English parents in Wales objected to Welsh-language instruction and demanded their own schools.
Any attempt to remove public funding from Ontario's francophone schools would cause a terrible uproar, and rightly so.
As for the "special provision" stuff - I happen to think that the gov't is supposed to serve the people, not the people molded into that cultural shape approved by the gov't. Forcing everyone to speak the same language where they don't wish to is a classic case of tyranny of the majority (defined as two sheep and three wolves voting on what's for dinner ;) ).
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2009, 06:29:17 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 06, 2009, 06:18:58 PM
Really? You have links to surveys of recently arrived immigrants where they majoritarly declare they wish their kids could go to public english schools?
To repeat: If parents didn't want their kids to go to English Schools --- why the laws?
To clear any ambiguity.
And ever since we've had the laws ---- why the continued immigration?
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2009, 06:34:22 PM
Forcing everyone to speak the same language where they don't wish to is a classic case of tyranny of the majority (defined as two sheep and three wolves voting on what's for dinner ;) ).
You've yet to show evidence of "forcing". You've yet to show evidence that "they don't wish to".
The argument is purely in your head Malthus.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 06, 2009, 06:36:26 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2009, 06:29:17 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 06, 2009, 06:18:58 PM
Really? You have links to surveys of recently arrived immigrants where they majoritarly declare they wish their kids could go to public english schools?
To repeat: If parents didn't want their kids to go to English Schools --- why the laws?
To clear any ambiguity.
And ever since we've had the laws ---- why the continued immigration?
'The laws have been a sucess as proven by immigration' is surely a bad argument for your side - unless by 'success' you happen to mean 'making Toronto far surpass Montreal'. ;)
Quebec's inane language laws have done it much harm in a strictly utilitarian sense. I see this very often in interacting with my international clients - if the choice is between Quebec, Ontario or Alberta/BC to launch some new venture (and it often is), all things being equal the language laws are commonly cited as a reason not to choose Quebec.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 06, 2009, 06:38:09 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2009, 06:34:22 PM
Forcing everyone to speak the same language where they don't wish to is a classic case of tyranny of the majority (defined as two sheep and three wolves voting on what's for dinner ;) ).
You've yet to show evidence of "forcing". You've yet to show evidence that "they don't wish to".
The argument is purely in your head Malthus.
Anyone can read the law.
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2009, 06:34:22 PM
As for the "special provision" stuff - I happen to think that the gov't is supposed to serve the people, not the people molded into that cultural shape approved by the gov't. Forcing everyone to speak the same language where they don't wish to is a classic case of tyranny of the majority (defined as two sheep and three wolves voting on what's for dinner ;) ).
Well I agree to some extent as I argued in burkini/pool-gate :p
But I disagree with language. I would be unhappy to see Bengali or Urdu language schools in England, though I'd have no problem with support for Urdu or Bengali speakers receiving help, or their being Urdu or Bengali language classes in an English school. If you want a school in a language other than the national, official language then I think you should opt out of the public sector. Though there should be extensive support for kids who don't speak the language - such as recent immigrants.
QuoteAny attempt to remove public funding from Ontario's francophone schools would cause a terrible uproar, and rightly so.
It would cause an uproar, but I think it'd be right. I mean their could be some exceptions I could see, for example some sort of Acadian community - and vice versa in Quebec. But I think that should be the exception not the rule for other communities.
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2009, 06:42:31 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 06, 2009, 06:36:26 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2009, 06:29:17 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 06, 2009, 06:18:58 PM
Really? You have links to surveys of recently arrived immigrants where they majoritarly declare they wish their kids could go to public english schools?
To repeat: If parents didn't want their kids to go to English Schools --- why the laws?
To clear any ambiguity.
And ever since we've had the laws ---- why the continued immigration?
'The laws have been a sucess as proven by immigration' is surely a bad argument for your side
My point, and you know it, is that immigrants are still coming in droves to Qc, despite our totally unfair nazi language laws. It's like they know their inalienable right to have free schooling in english anywhere in the world will be ruthlessly taken away from them, and yet they still come. Our immigrants are all into S&M.
Quote
- unless by 'success' you happen to mean 'making Toronto far surpass Montreal'. ;)
1967, Mal. Nineteen sixty fucking seven :lol:
Quote
Quebec's inane language laws have done it much harm in a strictly utilitarian sense. I see this very often in interacting with my international clients - if the choice is between Quebec, Ontario or Alberta/BC to launch some new venture (and it often is), all things being equal the language laws are commonly cited as a reason not to choose Quebec.
Bummer.
I see that this issue still hasn't lost any of its appeal.
I'm not usually separatist but sometimes you guys make it very hard to not be.
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 06, 2009, 03:17:39 PM
Considering the author and the tone of the article, I suspect a British accent (which we hear very little of, here) might be to blame and then got blown out of proportion by the author. Or the fact that the doctor in question is an idiot.
The article was written as a "humor" piece, not a news story. Remember who the author is - a man who makes his living making humor out of overstatement (bless his soul).
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 06, 2009, 06:51:40 PM
I see that this issue still hasn't lost any of its appeal.
I'm not usually separatist but sometimes you guys make it very hard to not be.
I don't usually cheer on the separatists, but sometimes you guys make it very hard not to.
Quote from: grumbler on September 06, 2009, 07:15:31 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 06, 2009, 06:51:40 PM
I see that this issue still hasn't lost any of its appeal.
I'm not usually separatist but sometimes you guys make it very hard to not be.
I don't usually cheer on the separatists, but sometimes you guys make it very hard not to.
Zombie De Gaulle is confused.
maybe he meant "jeered"?
It's odd that the only person here who can comment intelligently on anglophones educated in unilingual French is ignored.
Quote from: Neil on September 06, 2009, 07:20:57 PM
It's odd that the only person here who can comment intelligently on anglophones educated in unilingual French is ignored.
You forget that I've met you. You're not that anti-frog :P
Quote from: Zoupa on September 06, 2009, 07:26:17 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 06, 2009, 07:20:57 PM
It's odd that the only person here who can comment intelligently on anglophones educated in unilingual French is ignored.
You forget that I've met you. You're not that anti-frog :P
That's true. I like French. It has enabled me to fleece American corporations looking to do business in Quebec, but take advantage of Alberta's forgiving labour laws. I just like English better.
Quote from: dps on September 06, 2009, 06:29:39 PM
It would seem to me to be pretty self-evident that the apparant insistance of the French-speaking population of Canada that the country as a whole be bi-lingual English/French but that Quebec itself be uni-lingual French is inherently unfair and rather hypocritical.
Yeah that does appear somewhat strange.
I don't know where you get the insistance part.
Qcers don't care much about the postmaster in Yukon being bilingual or not.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 06, 2009, 07:57:24 PM
I don't know where you get the insistance part.
Qcers don't care much about the postmaster in Yukon being bilingual or not.
Well, from a distance, it appears that there is an insistance on the rest of the nation being bi-lingual--not necessarily that every "postmaster in the Yukon" actually be able to communicate in French, but that there is a legal fiction that such is the case. (I'm not sure that "legal fiction" is the term I actually want to use here.) It may be more a thing that applies to the political leaders of the French-speaking community, rather than the typical French-speaking citizen. That's why I included the "apparant". The reality may not quite match the appearance.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 06, 2009, 07:16:55 PM
maybe he meant "jeered"?
I believe he meant "Good Riddance." Which is odd, since he's not Canadian.
Quote from: dps on September 06, 2009, 08:13:39 PM
Well, from a distance, it appears that there is an insistance on the rest of the nation being bi-lingual--not necessarily that every "postmaster in the Yukon" actually be able to communicate in French, but that there is a legal fiction that such is the case. (I'm not sure that "legal fiction" is the term I actually want to use here.) It may be more a thing that applies to the political leaders of the French-speaking community, rather than the typical French-speaking citizen. That's why I included the "apparant". The reality may not quite match the appearance.
The political leaders of the french community in qc and the average citizen of qc doesn't insist on any of these things.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 06, 2009, 12:21:00 AM
Canada is a federation, where provinces decide a lot of things.
What a lot of you guys don't seem to get is that Quebec is unilingual francophone. That's a fact. There's really no point in complaining when you don't get served in english. 90% of the population is francophone and a big chunk of that doesn't speak english, especially out in the countryside.
There's no real incentive for them to learn english. There's even less incentive for them to serve you in english.
Just like you shouldn't expect to be served in english in a small town in turkey, china, italy or wherever.
On parle francais icitte. Calisse.
I agree. By the way I have a great deal of fun being in places where people dont speak English. It generally means that the culture is different from what I am used to and that is what I am after when I travel.
It seems the person who wrote the article in the opening post is ignorant of geography. If he wanted to be in an English speaking area he should not have travelled to Quebec. What an idiot!
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 06, 2009, 06:51:40 PM
I see that this issue still hasn't lost any of its appeal.
I'm not usually separatist but sometimes you guys make it very hard to not be.
I was thinking the same thing. Hell, this thread has
me leaning that way.
Quote from: Neil on September 06, 2009, 07:20:57 PM
It's odd that the only person here who can comment intelligently on anglophones educated in unilingual French is ignored.
Probably because, while he has the capacity to comment intelligently on the issue, everyone is waiting for him to do so. :P
Today (September 7th) is the 40th anniversay of the Law on Official languages.
:yeah:
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2009, 04:45:44 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 06, 2009, 04:42:55 PM
Ha ha.
So what would you have us do exactly?
Why not allow people to choose for themselves?
I know it's a radical notion, but it appears to be working well everywhere outside of Quebec so far.
Didn't work in Belgium whee it resulted in massive pressure to go francophone and look down on anything Flemish/Dutch
Won't work in Quebec for much the same reasons I guess.
On the contrary: it only increases the speed at which nation-forming happens in the mind of those who feel repressed.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 06, 2009, 07:57:24 PM
I don't know where you get the insistance part.
Qcers don't care much about the postmaster in Yukon being bilingual or not.
Yes the territories, being under quasi-federal jurisdiction, have a very high level of bilingual services. :huh:
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on September 07, 2009, 12:27:49 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2009, 04:45:44 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 06, 2009, 04:42:55 PM
Ha ha.
So what would you have us do exactly?
Why not allow people to choose for themselves?
I know it's a radical notion, but it appears to be working well everywhere outside of Quebec so far.
Didn't work in Belgium whee it resulted in massive pressure to go francophone and look down on anything Flemish/Dutch
Won't work in Quebec for much the same reasons I guess.
On the contrary: it only increases the speed at which nation-forming happens in the mind of those who feel repressed.
Made me think of the movement in the US to legislate English as the only official language...
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 06, 2009, 06:45:43 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2009, 06:34:22 PM
As for the "special provision" stuff - I happen to think that the gov't is supposed to serve the people, not the people molded into that cultural shape approved by the gov't. Forcing everyone to speak the same language where they don't wish to is a classic case of tyranny of the majority (defined as two sheep and three wolves voting on what's for dinner ;) ).
Well I agree to some extent as I argued in burkini/pool-gate :p
But I disagree with language. I would be unhappy to see Bengali or Urdu language schools in England, though I'd have no problem with support for Urdu or Bengali speakers receiving help, or their being Urdu or Bengali language classes in an English school. If you want a school in a language other than the national, official language then I think you should opt out of the public sector. Though there should be extensive support for kids who don't speak the language - such as recent immigrants.
QuoteAny attempt to remove public funding from Ontario's francophone schools would cause a terrible uproar, and rightly so.
It would cause an uproar, but I think it'd be right. I mean their could be some exceptions I could see, for example some sort of Acadian community - and vice versa in Quebec. But I think that should be the exception not the rule for other communities.
I'm having a difficult time understanding your position. You seem to believe that it is a good idea for a nation to not encourage minorities to speak their traditional languages in *some* cases, but not in others. Who gets to choose, and why?
Quote from: Barrister on September 07, 2009, 01:02:16 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 06, 2009, 07:57:24 PM
I don't know where you get the insistance part.
Qcers don't care much about the postmaster in Yukon being bilingual or not.
Yes the territories, being under quasi-federal jurisdiction, have a very high level of bilingual services. :huh:
Which, it seems, few actually care about or want, least of all people from Quebec, except for purely symbolic reasons.
As to Zoupa's point that no-one in Quebec cares to educate their kids in English, and so the law has no practical impact:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2007/08/31/language-law.html?ref=rss
Quote
The Quebec Court of Appeal ruling that stamped out any hope that 75 immigrant and anglophone children could attend an English school this year is "absolutely unfair," says the president of the province's English School Board Association.
Marcus Tabachnik said Friday there would never have been a flood of children leaving the French-language system to attend English schools if last week's Court of Appeal decision to allow easier access had been allowed to stand.
'The appeals court is the highest court in Quebec. They made a decision, and we expected them to obey that decision, the way we'd be expected to obey it.'
—Marcus Tabachnik, president of the English Language School Board Association"A thousand students out of a million students doesn't shift the balance. It doesn't change anything in terms of the differentiation of the French school boards and schools, and the English schools," Tabachnik said.
Superior Court Judge André Rochon ruled Thursday that the earlier ruling would be suspended until Quebec could appeal it to the Supreme Court, which could take years.
In making the ruling, Rochon said he considered "public order," and he wanted to avoid "administrative and legal chaos" in light of the school year just beginning.
Quebec's three main political parties all welcomed the ruling to suspend last week's judgment that would have allowed 25 Quebec families to send their children to English public schools, provided the children had attended English private schools for at least one year. That ruling went against Quebec's Charter of the French Language.
The Quebec government asked that the ruling be suspended until lawyers could argue in front of the Supreme Court, saying that upholding the ruling would open the floodgates and overwhelm the education system with transfer requests.
The Parti Québécois language critic, Pierre Curzi, said Thursday that making it easier for children to get into English school boards threatened the French language.
"It will be a very important threat against our social cohesion," he said.
Tabachnik said enrolment has gradually dropped in English schools over the past 30 years. He urged the provincial government to address that issue, and to ensure the survival of the English school system.
He said Thursday's decision will further damage the system.
"The appeals court is the highest court in Quebec. They made a decision, and we expected them to obey that decision, the way we'd be expected to obey it.
"Now, to say to the families that it could be a couple of years to know if the Supreme Court will even hear the case — it could be four or five years after that before there's a decision — is absolutely unfair," Tabachnik said.
A lawyer for the families, Brent Tyler, had to break the news to his clients at the Montreal courthouse Thursday.
"My clients are disappointed, that is evident," Tyler said, adding he expected a lengthy delay before both sides could have an audience with the Supreme Court.
"The last time we went in front of the Supreme Court in a similar case, we waited a year and a half to get a court date, and the judges deliberated for a year. In total, it lasted two and a half years," Tyler said.
This too is interesting:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2007/09/19/quebec-anglophones.html?ref=rss
QuoteThe Parti Québécois language critic, Pierre Curzi, said Thursday that making it easier for children to get into English school boards threatened the French language.
"It will be a very important threat against our social cohesion," he said.
:yeahright: This part is ridiculous. Education threatens social cohesion? I can't believe the guy would leave himself open to ridicule this way.
The ruling does not *force*
anyone to be educated in English; if a large group of francophones opts for anglophone education instead, that points to a systemic problem that the province should address separately. Refusing to respect cultural and linguistic diversity within your jurisdiction is more likely to harm social cohesion than simply respecting and accommodating it; the complaint smacks strongly of pure and simple xenophobia.
My overal view of the situation is as follows:
- Official bilingualism was an attempt, noble in its inception but doomed to failure, to create a society which saw itself as neither "English" nor "French" in culture and history, but purely "Canadian".
- A product of 1960s utopian nationalist thinking, which has been overtaken by two significant events:
1. The strengthening of Quebec ethno-nationalism, daunted not at all by the attractions of 'Canadian bilingualism'; and
2. The relative decline of English as an *ethnicity* in the rest of Canada, in favour of multi-culturalism (also vaguely and confusingly embraced by the federal gov't, which somewhat schitzophrenically embraces both multi-culturalism and bilingualsim, even though the two are, quite obviously, incompatible). The difference between the two is that multi-culturalism is more a description of the reality, as a single glance on the Toronto subway would reveal. The type of society envisioned by "official bilingualism" exists no-where except as a hopeful dream.
- In support of their ethno-nationalist project, Quebec politicians of all stripes have embraced a series of restrictive language laws that have had a punitive effect on the English minority living in their province. This is directly contrary to both "official bilingualism" and "multi-culturalism".
What exactly is it in Quebec that is so valuable? Why not just declare its independence?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 05, 2009, 11:43:50 AM
Last time I was in Quebec I thought the customs people were kind of snotty. But they were also very hot.
That's how you can tell they are Quebecois,
Quote from: The Brain on September 07, 2009, 11:57:15 AM
What exactly is it in Quebec that is so valuable? Why not just declare its independence?
They supply a massive amount of hydroelectric power to New England. Plus independence would effectively land lock Ontario. Plus you'd create a Danzig corridor between the Martimes and the rest of Canada.
Malthus: weren't language rights and/or biligualism officially recognized by treaty or whatever when Canada was formed?
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 06, 2009, 05:54:31 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2009, 05:34:41 PM
... as demonstratably untrue. If you are the child of immigrants, you are indeed "forced" into one school system and not the other.
If you go to a school in this country and you're an immigrant then your children will be taught in English. If there's sufficient numbers a team of specialists in your language may be hired by the school but the language of instruction won't change.
The only exception to that are the people who choose to opt out of our public system. For example the Lycee Charles de Gaulle, international schools and European schools.
What's so bad about going to a Francophone school when you're from an Anglo home? I don't understand the problem.
Nothing. a great many kids in Canada (all over the country do what we call "French Immersion" Learning everything at school En Francaise. My Niece is almost fluent in both languages yet is not much of a student. She does average in terms of grades, but has a leg up bilingually.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 07, 2009, 12:05:02 PM
Malthus: weren't language rights and/or biligualism officially recognized by treaty or whatever when Canada was formed?
Nope. The Constitution Act of 1867 stated that debates in Parliament were to be bilingual, and federal-jurisdiction court cases. This wasn't in any way "official bilingualism" as we know it - that was the creation of the language act of 1969, following a royal commission in the 1960s, as a whole series of legislative enactments of the 1970s (culminating in the Charter in 1982).
The difference is this: that the 1867 business wasn't an attempt to create a
bilingual society as an expression of Canadian nationalism.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on September 07, 2009, 12:12:05 PM
Nothing. a great many kids in Canada (all over the country do what we call "French Immersion" Learning everything at school En Francaise. My Niece is almost fluent in both languages yet is not much of a student. She does average in terms of grades, but has a leg up bilingually.
That's great when it is a matter of choice.
As in many other matters, *choice* and *consent* is what seperates out an experience that is wonderful and positive from one that is seen as oppressive and negative.
Just turn it around, and ask why it isn't okay to require all kids in Quebec to take "English Immersion".
Quote from: Malthus on September 07, 2009, 12:14:11 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 07, 2009, 12:05:02 PM
Malthus: weren't language rights and/or biligualism officially recognized by treaty or whatever when Canada was formed?
Nope. The Constitution Act of 1867 stated that debates in Parliament were to be bilingual, and federal-jurisdiction court cases. This wasn't in any way "official bilingualism" as we know it - that was the creation of the language act of 1969, following a royal commission in the 1960s, as a whole series of legislative enactments of the 1970s (culminating in the Charter in 1982).
The difference is this: that the 1867 business wasn't an attempt to create a bilingual society as an expression of Canadian nationalism.
That's not exactly a "no" answer though. The BNA Act did recognize certain areas would be bilingual. I think it also recognized certain language education rights IIRC.
Quote from: Barrister on September 07, 2009, 12:16:36 PM
That's not exactly a "no" answer though. The BNA Act did recognize certain areas would be bilingual. I think it also recognized certain language education rights IIRC.
It's not the same, though, as the policy known today as official bilingualism. Not the same in intent and not the same in effect.
Here's the section at issue:
Quote133. Either the English or the French Language may be used by any Person in the Debates of the Houses of the Parliament of Canada and of the Houses of the Legislature of Quebec; and both those Languages shall be used in the respective Records and Journals of those Houses; and either of those Languages may be used by any Person or in any Pleading or Process in or issuing from any Court of Canada established under this Act, and in or from all or any of the Courts of Quebec.
The Acts of the Parliament of Canada and of the Legislature of Quebec shall be printed and published in both those Languages.
http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/ca_1867.html
What can be gleaned from this is that the debates may be bilingual and certain court cases (either federal jurisdiction or in Quebec) may be bilingual and that the official record shall be bilingual.
Quote from: Malthus on September 07, 2009, 12:16:14 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on September 07, 2009, 12:12:05 PM
Nothing. a great many kids in Canada (all over the country do what we call "French Immersion" Learning everything at school En Francaise. My Niece is almost fluent in both languages yet is not much of a student. She does average in terms of grades, but has a leg up bilingually.
That's great when it is a matter of choice.
As in many other matters, *choice* and *consent* is what seperates out an experience that is wonderful and positive from one that is seen as oppressive and negative.
Just turn it around, and ask why it isn't okay to require all kids in Quebec to take "English Immersion".
who said anything about "all kids" in whatever region. Personally I'd say these few things
as to Zoupa's point about refugees etc... I think if you are trying to emigrate to Quebec to get out of some warzone or plague/famine ridden country, you don't care what language you may or may not ( in Vancouver a great many immigrants speak neither fluent English or French and they get by relatively fine, in and out of school somehow) have to learn
Learning a language is easier than living life in fear of whatever totalitarian crap they were putting up with elsewhere.
I think Mal has a point that Bi-bilingualism (like EVERY BINARY SYSTEM) has failed to live up to it's Utopian ideal. But well hell that's how it goes with Utopias, They are just dreams. No such thing in reality, and there never will be. Dystopias mind you. Does that mean we should just scrap it? How about people adjusting their expectations a bit.
If I go to Quebec for any reason, I always make an effort to Speak french (as poorly as I do)... In Mtl. It's not an issue, people just smile and ask you questions in unaccented English. Actually the last time I was in Montreal for any length of time, almost no one spoke more than a few words of French to me. It's like they could tell by mt inexpensive clothing and lack of cigarette that I was anglo :p
I don't see language as an issue in Canada anymore. Biggest strawman in the Land.
fucking dumbass quoting system. that's the real problem.
Quote from: Malthus on September 07, 2009, 11:24:52 AM
My overal view of the situation is as follows:
- Official bilingualism was an attempt, noble in its inception but doomed to failure, to create a society which saw itself as neither "English" nor "French" in culture and history, but purely "Canadian".
- A product of 1960s utopian nationalist thinking, which has been overtaken by two significant events:
1. The strengthening of Quebec ethno-nationalism, daunted not at all by the attractions of 'Canadian bilingualism'; and
2. The relative decline of English as an *ethnicity* in the rest of Canada, in favour of multi-culturalism (also vaguely and confusingly embraced by the federal gov't, which somewhat schitzophrenically embraces both multi-culturalism and bilingualsim, even though the two are, quite obviously, incompatible). The difference between the two is that multi-culturalism is more a description of the reality, as a single glance on the Toronto subway would reveal. The type of society envisioned by "official bilingualism" exists no-where except as a hopeful dream.
- In support of their ethno-nationalist project, Quebec politicians of all stripes have embraced a series of restrictive language laws that have had a punitive effect on the English minority living in their province. This is directly contrary to both "official bilingualism" and "multi-culturalism".
You could also take a glance at the Montreal metro. It's just as multi-ethnic.
You've yet to demonstrate how the language laws are punitive.
The anglophone minority has a whole network of publicly funded schools. They have several newspapers in english only. Local television and radio networks in english only. Two universities in english in Montreal alone. All government forms are also available in english. All government services are available in english.
They can live their whole lives without speaking a lick of french. So can their children. You'd be amazed how many of them do not speak a word of french. My anglo girlfriend didn't speak A WORD of french until she wanted to get into a french university and took summer classes. She was 22 at the time, she had lived her whole life in Quebec.
Can you explain to me how our punitive laws punished her? ( :perv: )
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 05, 2009, 12:33:08 AM
It's not news anywhere.
there's like 4 or 5 articles on Cyberpresse on the same subject and a thread in every single Quebec forum that's about politics...
Quote from: Drakken on September 05, 2009, 11:36:20 AM
Another beautiful example of them being so over-sensitive, that even now that the festivities for the 250th anniversary of the battle of the Plaines d'Abraham have been replaced by some inoffensive "parole mill" in which people from both sides, both languages, and from both spectrums of Quebec's national debate, are there to read texts and poetry - which is pretty innocuous in itself - Quebec City's mayor decided to suddenly boycott the event because he publicly branded the bloke who leads the Mouvement de Résistance du Québec, who said he'd be present as invited guest as head of a small but vocal separatist militant group, as a "violent separatist radical". Okey, the guy and his group are very vehement and outspoken about independence, I agree. But it doesn't take to be Einstein to see that violence has never been part of their rethoric. However, since they are very outspoken and aggressive about their beliefs they are now presented as "violent".
although I agree with your analysis, this is not the entire truth.
You conveniently forgot who was invited to the party.
You got Luck Mervill "Patriote de l'année", some dude whose favorite hobby is to participate in any kind of controversy he can find and instigate even more trouble (see the Villanueva case for his most recent work). He's the one reading the FLQ manifesto.
You got Loco-Loccass, a rapper band whose best single hit is "Libérez nous des Libéraux" and, the last time there was "some inoffensive" event, where they invited the Liberal Party as a sign of friendship decided to humiliate the people present. I don't like the Libs, but I can't blame them for not attending such a seperatist party.
Then you got a man who threatend to put fire to the tents and beat the people participating in the re-enactment of the battle of the Plains who is invited to read a text...
And among the politicians invited, you got all the seperatists leaders invited to read texts.
So, really, it is a seperatist party, and not only that, but it is a celebration of violence as a political tool.
Just imagine if Germany was to make a public reading of some Adolf Hitler's speech, made by a neo-nazi leader. Just in the name of peace&friendship...
No sorry, I can't follow you on that one.
Quebecers are oversensitive, and the Brit' dude is mostly right in his complaint of our healthcare system, but really, that shitstorm you speak of is the results of the seperatist leader agreeing with the scare tacticts of their most "controversial" elements.
They used them to cancel the re-enactement of the battle, and they use them again to push their own agendas while keeping their hands cleans. That's cowardice and hypocrisy to me.
Quote from: HVC on September 05, 2009, 08:43:47 PM
But they want to keep canadian subsidies :lol:
that's what happens when you leave important things to lefties. :(
Quote from: garbon on September 05, 2009, 09:19:13 PM
I don't think that most of Canada would decide to have a love of speaking French if taught it in schools...especially if the French instruction is rightfully seen as a project for the benefit of Quebec.
except for the odd Neil case where he hates everything that is not Neil ;) , usually, learning another language will open yourself to that culture and you get a better understanding of it.
It's one of the reasons why many extremists in Quebec want absolutely nothing to do with bilinguism, they fear that we will lose our culture if we learn to appreciate another, especially the dominant anglo-saxon one. Of course, that's bullshit, but we tend to listen way too much to these kind of people.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on September 06, 2009, 04:10:04 AM
at least we flems will talk to you in Dutch, English, French and depending on what type of education they had passable german, spanish or italian and maybe some greek too. So stuff it. :p
You'll speak to us in French only once we made it absolutely pretty clear that we are neither Walloons or French ;)
Quote from: viper37 on September 08, 2009, 10:11:42 AM
You conveniently forgot who was invited to the party.
You got Luck Mervill "Patriote de l'année", some dude whose favorite hobby is to participate in any kind of controversy he can find and instigate even more trouble (see the Villanueva case for his most recent work). He's the one reading the FLQ manifesto.
You got Loco-Loccass, a rapper band whose best single hit is "Libérez nous des Libéraux" and, the last time there was "some inoffensive" event, where they invited the Liberal Party as a sign of friendship decided to humiliate the people present. I don't like the Libs, but I can't blame them for not attending such a seperatist party.
Then you got a man who threatend to put fire to the tents and beat the people participating in the re-enactment of the battle of the Plains who is invited to read a text...
And among the politicians invited, you got all the seperatists leaders invited to read texts.
So, really, it is a seperatist party, and not only that, but it is a celebration of violence as a political tool.
Just imagine if Germany was to make a public reading of some Adolf Hitler's speech, made by a neo-nazi leader. Just in the name of peace&friendship...
No sorry, I can't follow you on that one.
You are really turning yourself into a typical talk radio follower.
Weren't you defending the reenactment a while back ? Why can't this - a battle ! - be read as a celebration of violence as a political tool ? They're also going to read, IIRC, excerpts from Lord Durham's report and from Mordecai Richler. Would this be a celebration of assimilation ? A celebration of detestation ?
There certainly is a measure of hypocrisy in the event: one can't on the one hand brush aside the supporters of the reenactment who claimed that this was «part of our history» while using the same argument to support the reading of the manifesto. I am torn because on the one hand, I think if Loco Locass wanted to do an inclusive event, they should have let Brigitte Haentjens, a more neutral figure, take more of the spotlight (threatening the media exposure in so doing) to invite people from all sides of the spectrum. On the other hand, I think people should, as Drakken said, «grow a spine» and understand that such events will always be political on some level, and as such, I think some prominent Liberals should have attended and appropriated a measure of the event. I think Loco Locass should not necessarily have expected a show of love from the Liberals, rather than whine. Confrontation is good and needs to be adressed firmly. In acting as the Liberals did, they are hoping to enact a self-fulfilling prophecy: decry the event as a separatist love-fest and hope that, in so doing, it becomes a separatist love-fest. I am not convinced it was intended to be that in the first place, but now the spotlight is all over separatist participants.
I do think the reading of the manifesto has more than its place, as one of the strongest moment of political history in Quebec. I have been to readings of the Wannsee protocols (chilling) and other documents much worse than the FLQ manifesto. You are right that context gives meaning. While Luke Mervill is certainly a public figure, one can't argue his political position over the issue of sovereignty is *that* prominent. His positions on other issues, racism notably, yes. But sovereignty ?
Quote from: Zoupa on September 06, 2009, 03:06:59 PM
I had never heard of this story before reading it on languish, and I watch the news and read the papers daily.
I don't even think viper cares. I'm sure he posted it for the humour.
mostly for the humor, not to start a 16 page thread on bilinguism. I think the guy exagerated some of the facts, but he's right on the core of the subject: our health care sucks.
And it sucks even more for foreigners, or non-insured citizens (those who spend too much time abroad).
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 08, 2009, 10:33:00 AM
You are really turning yourself into a typical talk radio follower.
I listen to the Club des Ex and RDI news time every day, but that's on tv. Does it count?
Ah, I forgot. I also read André Pratte, wich you don't like at all.
Le Devoir is just not my bag, sorry to disapoint.
Quote
Weren't you defending the reenactment a while back ? Why can't this - a battle ! - be read as a celebration of violence as a political tool ? They're also going to read, IIRC, excerpts from Lord Durham's report and from Mordecai Richler. Would this be a celebration of assimilation ? A celebration of detestation ?
If Simon Durivage was the one reading the FLQ manifesto, there'd be no trouble at all, and Sam Hamad would probably have been there.
Having your history teacher read some part of
Mein Kampf in a class is one thing, having your local neo-nazi read it is another.
Quote
There certainly is a measure of hypocrisy in the event: one can't on the one hand brush aside the supporters of the reenactment who claimed that this was «part of our history» while using the same argument to support the reading of the manifesto.
As I said, it's the crowd the problem, and the way they are going to do it. No way with these people that it's going to be a "neutral reading to commemorate history". If it was, these people wouldn't be there.
Quote
I am torn because on the one hand, I think if Loco Locass wanted to do an inclusive event, they should have let Brigitte Haentjens, a more neutral figure, take more of the spotlight (threatening the media exposure in so doing) to invite people from all sides of the spectrum. On the other hand, I think people should, as Drakken said, «grow a spine» and understand that such events will always be political on some level, and as such, I think some prominent Liberals should have attended and appropriated a measure of the event. I think Loco Locass should not necessarily have expected a show of love from the Liberals, rather than whine. Confrontation is good and needs to be adressed firmly. In acting as the Liberals did, they are hoping to enact a self-fulfilling prophecy: decry the event as a separatist love-fest and hope that, in so doing, it becomes a separatist love-fest. I am not convinced it was intended to be that in the first place, but now the spotlight is all over separatist participants.
as I said, the last time they were present at such an event, Loco-Locass sang "Libérez nous des Libéraux" and made obscene gesture at Lyne Beauchamp and Denis Coderre.
I've no love for them, but really, you can't expect them to be fooled twice.
Quote
I do think the reading of the manifesto has more than its place, as one of the strongest moment of political history in Quebec. I have been to readings of the Wannsee protocols (chilling) and other documents much worse than the FLQ manifesto. You are right that context gives meaning. While Luke Mervill is certainly a public figure, one can't argue his political position over the issue of sovereignty is *that* prominent. His positions on other issues, racism notably, yes. But sovereignty ?
He was named "Patriote de l'année" and he is known for inflamatory speech on various subjects, racims is one, his silly communists ideas (Québec Solidaire) are another. And Bourgeoys is gonna be there, the one who had the re-enactment, cancelled, side by side with Pauline Marois and Gilles Duceppe.
You may totally dislike André Pratte, but he had a good point: what would René Lévesque had done at such an event? He was after all pretty pissed off when the PQ membership applauded Larose, an ex-FLQ member.
As I said, it's not the manifesto in itself, it's the people attending the event. I read Mein Kampf. It didn't make a racist out of me. I read the FLQ manifesto, it didn't make a terrorist or a leftist of me (can't decide wich is worst ;) ). But having people cheering for the reading of such a text and all it symbolizes? Hmm... not too sure I have to be lenient and open minded on this one.
Quote from: Martinus on September 06, 2009, 03:24:22 PM
Well, we know that, since he didn't speak English. Any college-educated person living today (not just in Canada - where English is an official language - but pretty much anywhere in the world), especially in a profession like medicine, which relies on peer review and being up-to-date with international developments, who doesn't have at least a rudimentary knowledge of English must be an idiot.
most college level education don't require to learn english.
Even in medicine, unless you get specialized, you don't have that much stuff to read in english as far as I'm told.
I studied finance, everything from year 2 was in english. By comparison, those studying in accounting had 99% of their reading material in french.
Although technically, an accountant must be certified bilingual to get his university degree, all his reading is done in french and all his exams are in french.
Quote from: viper37 on September 08, 2009, 10:48:26 AM
I listen to the Club des Ex and RDI news time every day, but that's on tv. Does it count?
Ah, I forgot. I also read André Pratte, wich you don't like at all.
Le Devoir is just not my bag, sorry to disapoint. Quote
It's just that your talking points are taken from cue... André Pratt writes poorly, I disagree with him most often, but he is much more tolerable (less of a demagogue) than your usual J.-J. Samson, Lagacé, etc.
QuoteIf Simon Durivage was the one reading the FLQ manifesto, there'd be no trouble at all, and Sam Hamad would probably have been there.
Honnestly, I doubt it. But you are right that it would have made the reading less contentious. No need, once again, to use the Nazi scarecrow...
QuoteAs I said, it's the crowd the problem, and the way they are going to do it. No way with these people that it's going to be a "neutral reading to commemorate history". If it was, these people wouldn't be there.
How can you know ? It has not happened yet. Bourgeoys will show up with his 4-5 friends and that will be it. Just like the idiots who showed up at the Lake of Stew concert at the Saint-Jean were drowned by the crowd. I think, on its merits, this is a great idea. I will wait to see if it is such a one-sided affair. And if it is a one-sided affair, I will wait to see if it is this foretold celebration of violence. Which I heavily doubt, seeing as how all the past fear-mongering has ammounted to nothing. For the last 30 years.
QuoteHe was named "Patriote de l'année" and he is known for inflamatory speech on various subjects, racims is one, his silly communists ideas (Québec Solidaire) are another.
... and the links of such to the FLQ are inexistant, and the links of said speech with any public support to sovereignty are tenuous at best. You might dislike his ideas on racism (and for the benefits of non-Quebec readers who might still be reading this, Luck Mervill is of Haitian ancestry and has been a vocal defender of the black community) but you are really reaching with this one.
Quote from: Neil on September 06, 2009, 05:59:00 PM
It turns people into me.
That could be a problem, I'll admit. One Neil is enough in the entire country.
Quote from: dps on September 06, 2009, 06:29:39 PM
It would seem to me to be pretty self-evident that the apparant insistance of the French-speaking population of Canada that the country as a whole be bi-lingual English/French but that Quebec itself be uni-lingual French is inherently unfair and rather hypocritical.
That's not exactly how it is, and the demand for a bilingual Canada has historical roots that goes way, way before the 1960s and 70s.
And at first, it was mostly a religious issue, being afforded equal treatment under the law for Catholics and Protestants. Back then, being Catholic meant being French, and being English meant being Protestant, so that was really the same issue. See the Quebec Act of 1774 to understand the beginning of the 'great divide' between english&french of this country.
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 08, 2009, 11:08:34 AM
How can you know ? It has not happened yet.
you don't put a drug addict in a situation where they can do drugs. Simple as that. You put a drug addict at a party where's there's a lot of cocaine&mush, there's chances he'll do something.
It hasn't happenned yet and it may not happen, but the risk is high, and these are the same people who threaten to use violence, with the complicity of the PQ & Bloc, to have a wonderful event cancelled. You don't invite such people and then pretend it's neutral and there's nothing to it.
Quote
Bourgeoys will show up with his 4-5 friends and that will be it. Just like the idiots who showed up at the Lake of Stew concert at the Saint-Jean were drowned by the crowd.
Wich was different and was totally non political.
Quote
I think, on its merits, this is a great idea. I will wait to see if it is such a one-sided affair. And if it is a one-sided affair, I will wait to see if it is this foretold celebration of violence.
if it wasn't such a subjective subject, I'd bet you a bear, but we're bound to have 2 different understanding of the post-facto situation ;)
Quote
... and the links of such to the FLQ are inexistant, and the links of said speech with any public support to sovereignty are tenuous at best. You might dislike his ideas on racism (and for the benefits of non-Quebec readers who might still be reading this, Luck Mervill is of Haitian ancestry and has been a vocal defender of the black community) but you are really reaching with this one.
wait and see.
Luck Merville has ties with Québec Solidaire, wich is enough to make him a suspect and on top of that, he likes to provoke to attract attention, and he's much more than a simple defender of the black community. He's styles himself much more of Malcom X than Martin Luther King.
Quote from: dps on September 06, 2009, 06:29:39 PM
It would seem to me to be pretty self-evident that the apparant insistance of the French-speaking population of Canada that the country as a whole be bi-lingual English/French but that Quebec itself be uni-lingual French is inherently unfair and rather hypocritical.
I could be smoking crack here but somehow I think I would be more likely to find a bilingual person in Quebec than any other province so I do not get the supposed unilingualness of Quebec...
Come here, you'll be surprised.
Outside of Montreal, no one speaks English & French.
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2009, 06:42:31 PM
'The laws have been a sucess as proven by immigration' is surely a bad argument for your side - unless by 'success' you happen to mean 'making Toronto far surpass Montreal'. ;)
Montreal's decline VS Toronto started before that. It accelerated with the Quiet Revolution and French empowerement, people who objected to be forced to speak in french to the francophones of this province left. And that was good riddance frankly.
If people want to act as imperialists in a conquered country, they are welcome to leave at any time.
Quote
Quebec's inane language laws have done it much harm in a strictly utilitarian sense. I see this very often in interacting with my international clients - if the choice is between Quebec, Ontario or Alberta/BC to launch some new venture (and it often is), all things being equal the language laws are commonly cited as a reason not to choose Quebec.
If we had an attracting fiscality and and an über developped economy, that wouldn't be a problem.
As it is, the language laws are a minor issue. An issue that needs some attention, but not to the point of going back to the 50s and 60s.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 08, 2009, 12:33:44 PM
Come here, you'll be surprised.
Outside of Montreal, no one speaks English & French.
Well I stand corrected then.
Wow that just seems foolish to the point of lunacy to not speak English in North America.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 06, 2009, 06:45:43 PM
It would cause an uproar, but I think it'd be right. I mean their could be some exceptions I could see, for example some sort of Acadian community - and vice versa in Quebec. But I think that should be the exception not the rule for other communities.
they did try it. At some point, they merged the english schoold board with the french ones to drown them.
They tried again with the only French hospital in Ontario. No uproar from the english community.
Manitoba did it successfully for about a century.
There was no uproar from the english community.
A former Quebec citizen with past ties to the PQ was nominated as director of an Ottawa hospital (and english one).
Now, there was an uproar.
Ontario can be a nice province and it has lots of nice people, but it's in no way that bastion of light & tolerance towards other culture that Malthus wants to portray. Traditionnaly, French citizens of all provinces had had to fight a lot to get services in their own languages. And then once they are nearly assimilated, our anglo friends used the "sufficient number" excuse to stop funding public services.
Quote from: Valmy on September 08, 2009, 12:36:14 PM
Wow that just seems foolish to the point of lunacy to not speak English in North America.
and it is foolish.
35% of the population is bilingual, apparently. But public school english classes are notoriously bad. Nearly as bad as the french classes taught in other provinces. Come to think of it, our French classes seems deficient too...
I remember one english teacher in my high school, in particular. He didn't teach me, but he taught to some of my friends. My english was better than his. But that's another issue...
I do remember an english teacher from Vermont. He had a lot of trouble with his spelling. We constantly had to double check in the dictionnary to be sure.
Ah, the joys of public schools sometimes..
Quote from: viper37 on September 08, 2009, 12:34:58 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2009, 06:42:31 PM
'The laws have been a sucess as proven by immigration' is surely a bad argument for your side - unless by 'success' you happen to mean 'making Toronto far surpass Montreal'. ;)
Montreal's decline VS Toronto started before that. It accelerated with the Quiet Revolution and French empowerement, people who objected to be forced to speak in french to the francophones of this province left. And that was good riddance frankly.
If people want to act as imperialists in a conquered country, they are welcome to leave at any time.
Not everyone who objected to the financial and social impact of the language laws was a would-be imperialist.
Imposing a whole level of added costs and niggling petty bureaucracy on doing business - such as having the police carefully measure your signs to ensure that the font on the french version was
larger than the font on the English version (a requirement under Quebec law) was, IMHO, pure stupidity in an economy not otherwise doing so good, no?
QuoteIf we had an attracting fiscality and and an über developped economy, that wouldn't be a problem.
As it is, the language laws are a minor issue. An issue that needs some attention, but not to the point of going back to the 50s and 60s.
Yeah, if the streets were lined with gold in Montreal, you bet businesses would put up with all sorts of petty harrassment to do business there.
Fact is, foreign businesses look on Quebec as being one of three key areas in Canada, and when deciding whether to use one or another, they weigh up all the factors pro and con; and the language laws are (believe it or not) a pretty big "con", since they affect nearly every aspect of business, from instructions on software to signs to internet sites to contracts to key employees educating their kids.
The choice of keeping the laws or going back to the 1950s is a good example of a false dichotomy. Allow English to be equal in size on signs, and who knows what horrors may follow!
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 08, 2009, 12:33:44 PM
Come here, you'll be surprised.
Outside of Montreal, no one speaks English & French.
Lots of people in Quebec City spoke English to me. My wife spoke perfectly good French with them but I fail miserably on that score. I must say that everyone I met was most gracious and understanding that I was unable to speak French.
Quote from: viperOntario can be a nice province and it has lots of nice people, but it's in no way that bastion of light & tolerance towards other culture that Malthus wants to portray.
I think he only implied that it was a bastion compared to intolerant, backwards, xenophobic places like Quebec.
QuoteIf we had an attracting fiscality and and an über developped economy, that wouldn't be a problem.
There is a chicken and egg issue here - the fact that the entire province is so nationalistic and nasty to non-French is certainly going to make it rather difficult to compete and get that uber developed economy, isn't it?
But hey, they will have their "culture", so there you go...
Quote from: Valmy on September 08, 2009, 12:36:14 PM
Wow that just seems foolish to the point of lunacy to not speak English in North America.
But if you are living in a community where no one speaks English, all your media is in French and you have no wish to travel or do business outside your area why learn to speak English?
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 08, 2009, 12:33:44 PM
Come here, you'll be surprised.
Outside of Montreal, no one speaks English & French.
We have owned property in Quebec in a remote area near Temiskaming. I assure you, in my 40 plus years of going there, I've had lots of encounters with Quebec people, and most of them spoke at least some English.
Quote from: Malthus on September 08, 2009, 12:53:25 PM
Imposing a whole level of added costs and niggling petty bureaucracy on doing business - such as having the police carefully measure your signs to ensure that the font on the french version was larger than the font on the English version (a requirement under Quebec law)
This cannot *possibly* be true!
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 08, 2009, 12:56:16 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 08, 2009, 12:36:14 PM
Wow that just seems foolish to the point of lunacy to not speak English in North America.
But if you are living in a community where no one speaks English, all your media is in French and you have no wish to travel or do business outside your area why learn to speak English?
No reason at all.
If youa re happy remaining incapable of communicating with anyone outside your tiny little insular world (including people who might visit from outside), there is no reason whatsoever to learn another language.
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2009, 12:55:37 PM
There is a chicken and egg issue here - the fact that the entire province is so nationalistic and nasty to non-French is certainly going to make it rather difficult to compete and get that uber developed economy, isn't it?
But hey, they will have their "culture", so there you go...
I would characterize it a bit differently. I dont think there is a particular nastiness about it. As I posted above, all my experiences in the Province have been very positive. But you make a very good point about the economic isolation they create. As I said in my response to V, there is no need to speak English so long as they stay local but growing an economy on that basis is problematic at best.
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2009, 12:58:36 PM
If youa re happy remaining incapable of communicating with anyone outside your tiny little insular world (including people who might visit from outside), there is no reason whatsoever to learn another language.
Exactly the point I made in the post directly below yours.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 08, 2009, 12:56:16 PM
But if you are living in a community where no one speaks English, all your media is in French and you have no wish to travel or do business outside your area why learn to speak English?
Because most of your own country plus the huge one just south of you speak it? I mean I guess it is true that if having your business and employment and cultural opportunities limited to just your own tiny community is your thing then that is fine.
It would be like living in the Basque country of Spain and only learning Basque.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 08, 2009, 12:59:00 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2009, 12:55:37 PM
There is a chicken and egg issue here - the fact that the entire province is so nationalistic and nasty to non-French is certainly going to make it rather difficult to compete and get that uber developed economy, isn't it?
But hey, they will have their "culture", so there you go...
I would characterize it a bit differently. I dont think there is a particular nastiness about it. As I posted above, all my experiences in the Province have been very positive. But you make a very good point about the economic isolation they create. As I said in my response to V, there is no need to speak English so long as they stay local but growing an economy on that basis is problematic at best.
I read the OP, and it clearly said they were rather nasty, so it must be true.
Even if it is not true (and honestly, I have no idea) there is certainly the perception that it is true. For example, I would never visit Quebec because of that perception - if I was visiting Canada, there are lots of places that seem just as nice where I won't have to run the risk of dealing with some spaz who is going to act like an ass because I don't speak French.
Of course, the Francophones will just say "Well fuck you! We did not want you to come and visit us anyway!" in some outrageous French accent. Win-win. I don't visit, and they get to feel superior, but poor.
Quote from: viper37 on September 08, 2009, 12:39:28 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 06, 2009, 06:45:43 PM
It would cause an uproar, but I think it'd be right. I mean their could be some exceptions I could see, for example some sort of Acadian community - and vice versa in Quebec. But I think that should be the exception not the rule for other communities.
they did try it. At some point, they merged the english schoold board with the french ones to drown them.
They tried again with the only French hospital in Ontario. No uproar from the english community.
Manitoba did it successfully for about a century.
There was no uproar from the english community.
A former Quebec citizen with past ties to the PQ was nominated as director of an Ottawa hospital (and english one).
Now, there was an uproar.
Ontario can be a nice province and it has lots of nice people, but it's in no way that bastion of light & tolerance towards other culture that Malthus wants to portray. Traditionnaly, French citizens of all provinces had had to fight a lot to get services in their own languages. And then once they are nearly assimilated, our anglo friends used the "sufficient number" excuse to stop funding public services.
I'm not arguing that Ontario is a bastion of sweetness and light. Indeed, it was, in the past, a hotbed of ethno-nationalist xenophobia - mostly directed against Catholics, whether French or not. The Orange Order of Protestants used to be the most powerful political "machine" in the province - indeed, a town near Toronto is *called* "Orangeville".
However, that was then and this is now.
Their power has been utterly broken. We have had our fights over xenophobia, and xenophobia mostly lost. Not that there is
no xenophobia here, but it isn't focused in any one particular direction, anymore.
Contrast with Quebec.
Quote from: Malthus on September 08, 2009, 12:53:25 PM
Imposing a whole level of added costs and niggling petty bureaucracy on doing business - such as having the police carefully measure your signs to ensure that the font on the french version was larger than the font on the English version (a requirement under Quebec law)
Do you have any report that this was actually done ? In your trips to Montréal, did you notice that policy enforced ? Had you had the chance to visit Montréal before the language laws ?
Man I have always wanted to visit Montreal and Quebec. It would be like visiting France except everybody speaks French funny and it is really cold.
Is that really a law, or is Malthus exaggerating for effect?
That can't really be a law, can it? Seriously? In today's world?
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2009, 12:57:19 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 08, 2009, 12:53:25 PM
Imposing a whole level of added costs and niggling petty bureaucracy on doing business - such as having the police carefully measure your signs to ensure that the font on the french version was larger than the font on the English version (a requirement under Quebec law)
This cannot *possibly* be true!
Sadly, it is.
http://www.olf.gouv.qc.ca/english/regulations/reg_predominant.html
Quote1. In signs and posters of the civil administration, public signs and posters and posted commercial advertising that are both in French and in another language, French is markedly predominant where the text in French has a much greater visual impact than the text in the other language.
2. Where texts both in French and in another language appear on the same sign or poster. the text in French is deemed to have a much greater visual impact if the following conditions are met :
(1) the space allotted to the text in French is at least twice as large as the space allotted to the text in the other language:
(2) the characters used in the text in French are at least twice as large as those used in the text in the other language; and
(3) the other characteristics of the sign or poster do not have the effect of reducing the visual impact of the text in French.
3. Where texts both in French and in another language appear on separate signs or posters of the same size, the text in French is deemed to have a much greater visual impact if the following conditions are met :
(1) the signs and posters bearing the text in French are at least twice as numerous as those bearing the text in the other language :
(2) the characters used in the text in French are at least as large as those used in the text in the other language; and
(3) the other characteristics of the signs or posters do not have the effect of reducing the visual impact of the text in French.
4. Where texts both in French and in another language appear on separate signs or posters of a different size, the text in French is deemed to have a much greater visual impact if the following conditions are met :
(1) the signs and posters bearing the text in French are at least as numerous as those bearing the text in the other language;
(2) the signs or posters bearing the text in French are at least twice as large as those bearing the text in the other language;
(3) the characters used in the text in French are at least twice as large as those used in the text in the other language; and
(4) the other characteristics of the signs or posters do not have the effect of reducing the visual impact of the text in French.
5. This Regulation replaces the Regulation facilitating the implementation of the second paragraph of Section 58.1 of the Charter of the French language made by Order in Council 1130-89 dated 12 July 1989.
6. This Regulation comes into force on the date of its publication in the Gazette officielle du Québec.
This regulation has been published on
22 December 1993.
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2009, 01:05:42 PM
Is that really a law, or is Malthus exaggerating for effect?
That can't really be a law, can it? Seriously? In today's world?
I assure you it is. Bizarre as it may be.
:boggle:
So it would be illegal then for me to post an ad in strictly English, for example? A completely private advertisement?
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2009, 01:07:49 PM
So it would be illegal then for me to post an ad in strictly English, for example? A completely private advertisement?
Absolutely.
Moreover, it would be illegal to post a bilingual ad in which the French was the same size as the English.
French must "predominate".
Quote from: Valmy on September 08, 2009, 01:04:32 PM
Man I have always wanted to visit Montreal and Quebec. It would be like visiting France except everybody speaks French funny and it is really cold.
Montreal is nice, and so is quebec city. If you speak passable french (or at least attempt too :lol:) youèll have a great time. Even if yu speak no french you'll have a great time in most areas of those two cities.
As an aside, the french we're taught in ontarion is european french, it's not too useful in quebec :D
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2009, 01:02:35 PM
I read the OP, and it clearly said they were rather nasty, so it must be true.
Even if it is not true (and honestly, I have no idea) there is certainly the perception that it is true. For example, I would never visit Quebec because of that perception - if I was visiting Canada, there are lots of places that seem just as nice where I won't have to run the risk of dealing with some spaz who is going to act like an ass because I don't speak French.
Of course, the Francophones will just say "Well fuck you! We did not want you to come and visit us anyway!" in some outrageous French accent. Win-win. I don't visit, and they get to feel superior, but poor.
Since the OP is exaggerated for rhetorical effect I dont put any faith in the truthfulness of the report. I am disagreeing with the characterization because of my actual experience dealing with people in Quebec.
You are probably right about the image problem though since only someone who has actual experience can say that the story about nastiness is overblown.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 08, 2009, 12:59:00 PM
I would characterize it a bit differently. I dont think there is a particular nastiness about it. As I posted above, all my experiences in the Province have been very positive. But you make a very good point about the economic isolation they create. As I said in my response to V, there is no need to speak English so long as they stay local but growing an economy on that basis is problematic at best.
Indeed. Fortunately, «growing an economy» requires both Mom & Pop's where the need to learn English is nil and multinationals (Rio-Tinto-Alcan ; Cirque du Soleil ; Power Corporation) where the need is enormous.
Apart from that, lessons on bilingualism from people who admit being unilingual is interesting.
Quote from: HVC on September 08, 2009, 01:09:35 PM
Montreal is nice, and so is quebec city. If you speak passable french (or at least attempt too :lol:) youèll have a great time. Even if yu speak no french you'll have a great time in most areas of those two cities.
As an aside, the french we're taught in ontarion is european french, it's not too useful in quebec :D
Why? Wouldn't the teachers be from Quebec? But I guess if Quebec English teachers do not even have it as their first language either...
Anyway Quebec French sounds really funny when you are used to hearing Euro French.
Quote from: Malthus on September 08, 2009, 01:08:58 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2009, 01:07:49 PM
So it would be illegal then for me to post an ad in strictly English, for example? A completely private advertisement?
Absolutely.
Moreover, it would be illegal to post a bilingual ad in which the French was the same size as the English.
French must "predominate".
Can someone post a sign in a third language with no french? it'd feel weird walking through chinatown here with bilingual signs.
Well not if it's an english newspaper.
Quote from: Valmy on September 08, 2009, 01:11:09 PM
Quote from: HVC on September 08, 2009, 01:09:35 PM
Montreal is nice, and so is quebec city. If you speak passable french (or at least attempt too :lol:) youèll have a great time. Even if yu speak no french you'll have a great time in most areas of those two cities.
As an aside, the french we're taught in ontarion is european french, it's not too useful in quebec :D
Why? Wouldn't the teachers be from Quebec? But I guess if Quebec English teachers do not even have it as their first language either...
Anyway Quebec French sounds really funny when you are used to hearing Euro French.
all my french teachers were of italian ethnicity, so i wouldn't know lol. I used to be relativly good in french (awesome by my peers standards) and the first time i went to montreal i was very confused.
Quote from: HVC on September 08, 2009, 01:11:15 PM
Can someone post a sign in a third language with no french? i'd feel weird walking through chinatown here with bilingual signs.
The law clearly indicates simply 'another language' so English is not singled out. Your Serbo-Croatian sign must have French on it as well it seems.
They don't really translate in Montreal's China town either.
It's the kind of law that is only enforce if someones complains & since no one does except the random "can't find any real news" journalist. It's not really enforced, especially in China Town.
Quote from: Malthus on September 08, 2009, 01:08:58 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2009, 01:07:49 PM
So it would be illegal then for me to post an ad in strictly English, for example? A completely private advertisement?
Absolutely.
Moreover, it would be illegal to post a bilingual ad in which the French was the same size as the English.
French must "predominate".
No. Any type of ad, in English speaking media - TV, newspaper, internet - is fine. Political speech is fine. You get unilingual political signs on lawns. What is targetted is outdoors or indoors commercial ads. You can't post «SALE» without posting «VENTE». The «French must predominate» was necessary because, of course, you got Angryphones wiseasses who tried to circumvent the law by posting a French version in small prints.
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 08, 2009, 01:10:05 PM
Apart from that, lessons on bilingualism from people who admit being unilingual is interesting.
Who is that?
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 08, 2009, 01:04:11 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 08, 2009, 12:53:25 PM
Imposing a whole level of added costs and niggling petty bureaucracy on doing business - such as having the police carefully measure your signs to ensure that the font on the french version was larger than the font on the English version (a requirement under Quebec law)
Do you have any report that this was actually done ? In your trips to Montréal, did you notice that policy enforced ? Had you had the chance to visit Montréal before the language laws ?
Certainly. There have been court cases of businessmen fined for not having French "predominate".
Moreover, it isn't really significant to my point whether the laws are enforced stringently or not, as business people doing due dilligence have to assume that they will
obey the existing local laws, not flout them because they aren't strictly enforced - and plan for the costs of doing that. Which, in Quebec, always means printing up special "Quebec only" materials to conform to Quebec's bizzare language laws.
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 08, 2009, 01:10:05 PM
Indeed. Fortunately, «growing an economy» requires both Mom & Pop's where the need to learn English is nil and multinationals (Rio-Tinto-Alcan ; Cirque du Soleil ; Power Corporation) where the need is enormous.
Apart from that, lessons on bilingualism from people who admit being unilingual is interesting.
My intention is not to give you a lesson in bilingualism. The math is simple. If a small percentage of the population of Quebec can speak English then you have a small pool of people from which you can draw from for the talent to deal with the English speaking world. Those people who cannot speak English must then rely on the bilingual speakers for economic relations with the English speaking world.
If you have found a solution to this obvious problem then more power to you. Not only can you speak more languages then I but you are obviously much more intelligent as well. :)
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2009, 01:02:35 PM
Even if it is not true (and honestly, I have no idea) there is certainly the perception that it is true. For example, I would never visit Quebec because of that perception - if I was visiting Canada, there are lots of places that seem just as nice where I won't have to run the risk of dealing with some spaz who is going to act like an ass because I don't speak French.
So you would specifically choose not to travel to a place because there is a "perception" that people might be rude or because there is some risk someone might be rude? On that basis, how could you visit anyplace? In my experience, people are capable of being a "spaz" and acting like an ass in any language.
Certainly languish is proof that English speakers are not immune. :D
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2009, 01:14:28 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 08, 2009, 01:10:05 PM
Apart from that, lessons on bilingualism from people who admit being unilingual is interesting.
Who is that?
i speak two an half languages, can i bitch freely? :unsure:
Quote from: HVC on September 08, 2009, 01:11:15 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 08, 2009, 01:08:58 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2009, 01:07:49 PM
So it would be illegal then for me to post an ad in strictly English, for example? A completely private advertisement?
Absolutely.
Moreover, it would be illegal to post a bilingual ad in which the French was the same size as the English.
French must "predominate".
Can someone post a sign in a third language with no french? it'd feel weird walking through chinatown here with bilingual signs.
Nope. Chinese, English, all must be subordinate to "predominate" French under this law.
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 08, 2009, 01:13:51 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 08, 2009, 01:08:58 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2009, 01:07:49 PM
So it would be illegal then for me to post an ad in strictly English, for example? A completely private advertisement?
Absolutely.
Moreover, it would be illegal to post a bilingual ad in which the French was the same size as the English.
French must "predominate".
No. Any type of ad, in English speaking media - TV, newspaper, internet - is fine. Political speech is fine. You get unilingual political signs on lawns. What is targetted is outdoors or indoors commercial ads. You can't post «SALE» without posting «VENTE». The «French must predominate» was necessary because, of course, you got Angryphones wiseasses who tried to circumvent the law by posting a French version in small prints.
Ahhh, so it is actually the fault of the non-French that the law says that "French MUST predominate" with "predominate" being defined as being twice as large? Because if it wasn't "twice as large", why, that would be a sign that the sign writer is an "Angryphone"?
Uh-huh.
Quote from: Malthus on September 08, 2009, 01:14:35 PM
Certainly. There have been court cases of businessmen fined for not having French "predominate".
Moreover, it isn't really significant to my point whether the laws are enforced stringently or not, as business people doing due dilligence have to assume that they will obey the existing local laws, not flout them because they aren't strictly enforced - and plan for the costs of doing that. Which, in Quebec, always means printing up special "Quebec only" materials to conform to Quebec's bizzare language laws.
It doesn't seem that hard since every sizeable industry seem to be able to do it. It's an added cost sure. It's the choice
we made.
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2009, 01:16:34 PM
Ahhh, so it is actually the fault of the non-French that the law says that "French MUST predominate" with "predominate" being defined as being twice as large? Because if it wasn't "twice as large", why, that would be a sign that the sign writer is an "Angryphone"?
Uh-huh.
Well almost all laws are written as knee-jerk reactions to specific outrages so it seems logical.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 08, 2009, 01:13:38 PM
They don't really translate in Montreal's China town either.
It's the kind of law that is only enforce if someones complains & since no one does except the random "can't find any real news" journalist. It's not really enforced, especially in China Town.
and i guess most would only complain about english signs.
On the whole economic side of it, i'm still highly amused that my bank, the Bank of Montreal, is headquartered in toronto.
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 08, 2009, 01:13:51 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 08, 2009, 01:08:58 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2009, 01:07:49 PM
So it would be illegal then for me to post an ad in strictly English, for example? A completely private advertisement?
Absolutely.
Moreover, it would be illegal to post a bilingual ad in which the French was the same size as the English.
French must "predominate".
No. Any type of ad, in English speaking media - TV, newspaper, internet - is fine. Political speech is fine. You get unilingual political signs on lawns. What is targetted is outdoors or indoors commercial ads. You can't post «SALE» without posting «VENTE». The «French must predominate» was necessary because, of course, you got Angryphones wiseasses who tried to circumvent the law by posting a French version in small prints.
He specifically asked about "posting an ad".
Why does the law not simply require that the French be the
same?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 08, 2009, 01:15:35 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2009, 01:02:35 PM
Even if it is not true (and honestly, I have no idea) there is certainly the perception that it is true. For example, I would never visit Quebec because of that perception - if I was visiting Canada, there are lots of places that seem just as nice where I won't have to run the risk of dealing with some spaz who is going to act like an ass because I don't speak French.
So you would specifically choose not to travel to a place because there is a "perception" that people might be rude or because there is some risk someone might be rude? On that basis, how could you visit anyplace? In my experience, people are capable of being a "spaz" and acting like an ass in any language.
Certainly languish is proof that English speakers are not immune. :D
Wasn't my post rather clear that I was choosing to go somewhere else due to the fact that "somewhere else" does not share the same perception that there is THIS particular problem?
Sure, if Quebec had some awesomely great reason to visit that trumped this (compared to other options), then I would go - but I don't know that it does, so why deal with the problem if there is no good reason to do so?
All other things being equal, why choose the place with the perception that they are going to be asshole unless I speak, or pretend to try to speak, a language I do not speak?
I guess I might go if I got to travel enough that I went and saw the other places I wanted to see already, but since that is not the case...the odds of Quebec ever making it to the top of my destination list are considerably reduced.
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 08, 2009, 01:10:05 PM
Indeed. Fortunately, «growing an economy» requires both Mom & Pop's where the need to learn English is nil and multinationals (Rio-Tinto-Alcan ; Cirque du Soleil ; Power Corporation) where the need is enormous.
A dangerous assumption. Even very small businesses can get significant benefits from being able to interact with the broader market outside their immediate current clients and suppliers. Of course English strictly isn't necessary to do this, but can be very helpful especially for a business located in North America.
Quote from: Malthus on September 08, 2009, 12:53:25 PM
Not everyone who objected to the financial and social impact of the language laws was a would-be imperialist.
not everyone, but most of them.
Quote
Imposing a whole level of added costs and niggling petty bureaucracy on doing business - such as having the police carefully measure your signs to ensure that the font on the french version was larger than the font on the English version (a requirement under Quebec law) was, IMHO, pure stupidity in an economy not otherwise doing so good, no?
If nearly all businesses of Toronto, not just a tiny part of the city but over 95% of them had signs in Chinese, you'd be among the first to complain.
The law as some stupidity, but no one ever measured the signs with a tape.
Back in the 1950s, Montreal was an english city. You couldn't get a decent job if you spoke french. All businesses, even those owned by French people had english names, heck even around here many businesses had english names. "Fraser Mill", "Fraser Power Inc.", etc, etc. You couldn't order anything from Sears if you didn't speak english, their catalog was printed only in english. There's a famous text about it that I read in school, how one mother took the time to write in french, saying she couldn't write in english, to order a Montreal Canadians jersey shirt for her son, and they instead received a Maple Leafs one... That kid was traumatized for life. ;)
All because of imperialist anglos thinking like Neil, that English is the only language worth learning and others have to adapt to you, not the opposite.
Kinda like the old Ford saying "they can have their car in any color they want as long as it's black". ;)
And with the language laws, that changed. In a few years, Quebec became a truly French province. We suddenly had French Speaking entrepreneurs. We could get decent paying jobs where english wasn't mandatory anymore. You could get instructions manual in French. You could go to work and be spoken to in your own language.
We went maybe a bit too far, and way too much bureaucratic in some ways. That I agree. But on the principle, I disagree with you, it was a damn good idea. And so be it with those who refused to accept this, to accept to treat French as equals.
Quote
Fact is, foreign businesses look on Quebec as being one of three key areas in Canada, and when deciding whether to use one or another, they weigh up all the factors pro and con; and the language laws are (believe it or not) a pretty big "con", since they affect nearly every aspect of business, from instructions on software to signs to internet sites to contracts to key employees educating their kids.
Well, see, to do business in Quebec, you have to do it in French, and yes, that annoys people. And I understand that. Laura Secord decided it was too much for them. Financial Life and other insurance companies decided they couldn't cope with it. And they left. And they paid a dear price. And most of them came back. With a new name. With a new attitude.
There are people who refused to do business with Israel, at some point, and even now, because they see it as a "Jewish State" and its frustrating to them. The same can be said for Quebec, some people will not do business with us because it's a French State. So be it. I don't think we should all become english speaking and allow ourself to lose our culture just to please these people.
Sure, we miss out some opportunities. But that's not the worst part of it, and as I said, if we reform our economy and become as dynamic as Ireland once was, we too will attrack foreigner, regardless of the language.
Quote
The choice of keeping the laws or going back to the 1950s is a good example of a false dichotomy. Allow English to be equal in size on signs, and who knows what horrors may follow!
Give them an inch, they take a foot.
If english was a minority language and French was dominant on the continent, there would be no need for such laws. But we don't live in a ideal world.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 08, 2009, 01:18:34 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 08, 2009, 01:14:35 PM
Certainly. There have been court cases of businessmen fined for not having French "predominate".
Moreover, it isn't really significant to my point whether the laws are enforced stringently or not, as business people doing due dilligence have to assume that they will obey the existing local laws, not flout them because they aren't strictly enforced - and plan for the costs of doing that. Which, in Quebec, always means printing up special "Quebec only" materials to conform to Quebec's bizzare language laws.
It doesn't seem that hard since every sizeable industry seem to be able to do it. It's an added cost sure. It's the choice we made.
I'm simply pointing out that this choice has had economic consequences - it has empoverished Quebec to the benefit, in part, of Ontario.
Really, out of self-interest I ought to encourage you guys to do more things like this. ;)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 08, 2009, 01:20:22 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 08, 2009, 01:10:05 PM
Indeed. Fortunately, «growing an economy» requires both Mom & Pop's where the need to learn English is nil and multinationals (Rio-Tinto-Alcan ; Cirque du Soleil ; Power Corporation) where the need is enormous.
A dangerous assumption. Even very small businesses can get significant benefits from being able to interact with the broader market outside their immediate current clients and suppliers. Of course English strictly isn't necessary to do this, but can be very helpful especially for a business located in North America.
Indeed - in the age of the internet, being able to communicate effectively outside your insular world is very useful, even for the mom and pops.
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2009, 01:20:00 PM
Wasn't my post rather clear that I was choosing to go somewhere else due to the fact that "somewhere else" does not share the same perception that there is THIS particular problem?
France has this perception and it certainly proved to be nonsense in my experience.
But, as you say, there are more compelling reasons to visit France than to visit Quebec.
Quote from: Valmy on September 08, 2009, 01:23:33 PM
France has this perception and it certainly proved to be nonsense in my experience.
But, as you say, there are more compelling reasons to visit France than to visit Quebec.
Except for paris, they are indeed dicks there.
Quote from: Valmy on September 08, 2009, 01:23:33 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2009, 01:20:00 PM
Wasn't my post rather clear that I was choosing to go somewhere else due to the fact that "somewhere else" does not share the same perception that there is THIS particular problem?
France has this perception and it certainly proved to be nonsense in my experience.
But, as you say, there are more compelling reasons to visit France than to visit Quebec.
Bingo.
And to be honest, France is low on my list of Euro destinations as well, for much the same reason. Although at least there are some rather unique things about France that would make me certainly visit it anyway if I had the time and funds.
And it isn't that it is a foreign language - Greece is actually rather high on my list (probably actually first). But then, everything I have heard about the parts of Greece I would like to visit has been very positive.
Quote from: HVC on September 08, 2009, 01:25:42 PM
Except for paris, they are indeed dicks there.
True but they are dicks even if you speak French better than Voltaire wrote it.
Quote from: Malthus on September 08, 2009, 01:21:43 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 08, 2009, 01:18:34 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 08, 2009, 01:14:35 PM
Certainly. There have been court cases of businessmen fined for not having French "predominate".
Moreover, it isn't really significant to my point whether the laws are enforced stringently or not, as business people doing due dilligence have to assume that they will obey the existing local laws, not flout them because they aren't strictly enforced - and plan for the costs of doing that. Which, in Quebec, always means printing up special "Quebec only" materials to conform to Quebec's bizzare language laws.
It doesn't seem that hard since every sizeable industry seem to be able to do it. It's an added cost sure. It's the choice we made.
I'm simply pointing out that this choice has had economic consequences - it has empoverished Quebec to the benefit, in part, of Ontario.
Really, out of self-interest I ought to encourage you guys to do more things like this. ;)
Maybe as a whole Quebec was empoverished but all that wealth would have been in the hand of the English minority & that was inacceptable. Every choice & every law since the Revolution Tranquille have been made with the "le Quebec au Québécois" mantra.
Berkut, There's no real reason for you to come to Quebec anyway, it looks alot like Upstate New York.
Also, I speak french & visiting France isn't high on my list too.
I found the real French rather delightful.
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2009, 01:07:49 PM
So it would be illegal then for me to post an ad in strictly English, for example? A completely private advertisement?
One of the Atlanta suburbs, Snellville if I remember correctly, had a ban on any Spanish-only signage and required that the English text be larger than the Spanish text on any signs. Looks exactly like the Quebec thing.
Quote from: ulmont on September 08, 2009, 01:33:04 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2009, 01:07:49 PM
So it would be illegal then for me to post an ad in strictly English, for example? A completely private advertisement?
One of the Atlanta suburbs, Snellville if I remember correctly, had a ban on any Spanish-only signage and required that the English text be larger than the Spanish text on any signs. Looks exactly like the Quebec thing.
That is stupid and xenophobic as well, although at least there you are only be stupid and xenophobic towards the minority in your country. It has its own economic consequences, although probably not as severe as if some part of LA decided that you MUST post everything in Spanish.
Does the Quebec law mandate that all signs be in both French and English, or is all-French ok?
Quote from: viper37 on September 08, 2009, 01:20:38 PM
There are people who refused to do business with Israel, at some point, and even now, because they see it as a "Jewish State" and its frustrating to them.
Not the same. Business that decide not to do business in Israel do so because they either have some ideological opposition to very notion of the state or because they are intimidated by those that do. What Malthus is talking about is deciding not to business because of costs of complying with bureaucratic or regulatory hassles.
Apparently it is easier to do business in English in Israel (or France or that matter!) than in is in a province of Canada, which should give some pause.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 08, 2009, 01:28:31 PM
Maybe as a whole Quebec was empoverished but all that wealth would have been in the hand of the English minority & that was inacceptable. Every choice & every law since the Revolution Tranquille have been made with the "le Quebec au Québécois" mantra.
See, if some Chinese people owned a company (or many companies) generating wealth in Ontario, most Ontario folks do not take the position that their wealth is meaningless to the province because they are Chinese.
All French is Ok. Quebec is an unilangual French Province.
IMO, if you ahve to pass laws to protect your "culture" it is already dead, and you are just making its arms and legs move about with strings anyway.
Quote from: Malthus on September 08, 2009, 01:36:42 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 08, 2009, 01:28:31 PM
Maybe as a whole Quebec was empoverished but all that wealth would have been in the hand of the English minority & that was inacceptable. Every choice & every law since the Revolution Tranquille have been made with the "le Quebec au Québécois" mantra.
See, if some Chinese people owned a company (or many companies) generating wealth in Ontario, most Ontario folks do not take the position that their wealth is meaningless to the province because they are Chinese.
The Chinese minority doesn't repress the english majority for being English tho.
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2009, 01:35:56 PM
Quote from: ulmont on September 08, 2009, 01:33:04 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2009, 01:07:49 PM
So it would be illegal then for me to post an ad in strictly English, for example? A completely private advertisement?
One of the Atlanta suburbs, Snellville if I remember correctly, had a ban on any Spanish-only signage and required that the English text be larger than the Spanish text on any signs. Looks exactly like the Quebec thing.
That is stupid and xenophobic as well, although at least there you are only be stupid and xenophobic towards the minority in your country. It has its own economic consequences, although probably not as severe as if some part of LA decided that you MUST post everything in Spanish.
Does the Quebec law mandate that all signs be in both French and English, or is all-French ok?
All French = Okay.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 08, 2009, 01:37:16 PM
All French is Ok. Quebec is an unilangual French Province.
Wow.
Quote from: HVC on September 08, 2009, 01:25:42 PM
Except for paris, they are indeed dicks there.
paris is a large central city and has many of the same issues as other cities of this nature.
The stereotype of Parisian rudeness (which is exaggerated over the reality) is just as strongly held within other parts of France as it is outside France.
Not unlike with NYC.
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2009, 01:38:02 PM
IMO, if you ahve to pass laws to protect your "culture" it is already dead, and you are just making its arms and legs move about with strings anyway.
That is, indeed, the whole point. They are fearful their culture is getting destroyed so they are scrambling to protect it.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 08, 2009, 01:39:11 PM
Quote from: HVC on September 08, 2009, 01:25:42 PM
Except for paris, they are indeed dicks there.
paris is a large central city and has many of the same issues as other cities of this nature.
The stereotype of Parisian rudeness (which is exaggerated over the reality) is just as strongly held within other parts of France as it is outside France.
Not unlike with NYC.
It's not that the parisians themselves are rude (or not in my experience anyway) it's the service that is rude. from taxi drivers to waiters and hotel staff. People who i'm used to be obnoxious pleasant coming from NA.
Quote from: Malthus on September 08, 2009, 01:14:35 PM
Certainly. There have been court cases of businessmen fined for not having French "predominate".
and in these cases, there was simply no french.
Quote
Moreover, it isn't really significant to my point whether the laws are enforced stringently or not, as business people doing due dilligence have to assume that they will obey the existing local laws, not flout them because they aren't strictly enforced - and plan for the costs of doing that. Which, in Quebec, always means printing up special "Quebec only" materials to conform to Quebec's bizzare language laws.
You know, nowadays, everything produced in the NAFTA is printed in English, Spanish and French at the very least.
I just bought a Polar watch last week. It came with instructions in English, French, German, Chinese, Spanish, Korean and some other.
My Windows Ultimate allow me to switch between French&English menu, as well as 40 other languages.
Silly me. Of course.
I should see that writing instructions and packaging for every language of the world is not a problem, unless you happen to ship to Quebec.
Silly me.
;)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 08, 2009, 01:39:11 PM
Quote from: HVC on September 08, 2009, 01:25:42 PM
Except for paris, they are indeed dicks there.
paris is a large central city and has many of the same issues as other cities of this nature.
The stereotype of Parisian rudeness (which is exaggerated over the reality) is just as strongly held within other parts of France as it is outside France.
Not unlike with NYC.
The difference with NYC though is that they are mean to everyone - including other New Yorkers.
The reality, since I have visited several times in the last couple years, is that I could not really tell the difference in the spread of niceness, until you start driving. Then it isn't so much that everyone is nasty, but that there is an entirely different view of what is "polite" driving from the rest of the entire country. In that there is zero weight given to any kind of need to be "polite" at all.
I wonder how much all these perceptions are grounded in any kind of reality - if I visited Montreal, for example, is there really any actually higher chance of someone being a douchebag because I would not even pretend to try to speak French?
Quote from: Malthus on September 08, 2009, 01:36:42 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 08, 2009, 01:28:31 PM
Maybe as a whole Quebec was empoverished but all that wealth would have been in the hand of the English minority & that was inacceptable. Every choice & every law since the Revolution Tranquille have been made with the "le Quebec au Québécois" mantra.
See, if some Chinese people owned a company (or many companies) generating wealth in Ontario, most Ontario folks do not take the position that their wealth is meaningless to the province because they are Chinese.
There are some places in Vancouver where you will see only Chinese signs, including store signs, real estate signs, all manner of signs.
I dont have a problem with that.
If I lived in a City which was predominantly Chinese so that almost all signs were in that language I would also not have a problem.
The differenct in Quebec is that the majority of citizens were French speakers while the majority of signs were in English. A different case really.
Quote from: viper37 on September 08, 2009, 01:42:20 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 08, 2009, 01:14:35 PM
Certainly. There have been court cases of businessmen fined for not having French "predominate".
and in these cases, there was simply no french.
Quote
Moreover, it isn't really significant to my point whether the laws are enforced stringently or not, as business people doing due dilligence have to assume that they will obey the existing local laws, not flout them because they aren't strictly enforced - and plan for the costs of doing that. Which, in Quebec, always means printing up special "Quebec only" materials to conform to Quebec's bizzare language laws.
You know, nowadays, everything produced in the NAFTA is printed in English, Spanish and French at the very least.
I just bought a Polar watch last week. It came with instructions in English, French, German, Chinese, Spanish, Korean and some other.
Silly me. Of course.
I should see that writing instructions and packaging for every language of the world is not a problem, unless you happen to ship to Quebec.
Silly me.
;)
And yet....nobody needed to pass a law demanding that your watch have instructions in German, did they?
Rather, it simply made economic sense for your watch maker to include them since they would like to sell their watches to the Germans, so they did so.
No xenophobic language laws required at all...
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2009, 01:42:57 PM
The difference with NYC though is that they are mean to everyone - including other New Yorkers.
Which is exactly what we were saying about Paris so that really is not a difference.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 08, 2009, 01:38:08 PM
The Chinese minority doesn't repress the english majority for being English tho.
How not? They give jobs to other Chinese folks, and very often have signs in Chinese only. Aren't these the examples of "repression" you've provided?
Berkut, no. If you happen to be visiting, let's say Downtown Montreal & shopping there. Atleast 90% of the Cashier would say Hi in english first.
Hell, they do it to me & as HVC, BB, Sask, Malthus & Josephus can attest, I look fairly french.
Quote from: Valmy on September 08, 2009, 01:45:08 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2009, 01:42:57 PM
The difference with NYC though is that they are mean to everyone - including other New Yorkers.
Which is exactly what we were saying about Paris so that really is not a difference.
True. i tried being "portuguese" to see if they were being dicks becasue i was anglo... they were still dicks, but it took longer becasue they didn't know portuguese and my french was bad by that point in time.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 08, 2009, 01:44:04 PM
The differenct in Quebec is that the majority of citizens were French speakers while the majority of signs were in English. A difference case really.
Seems like if that were the case, it would be a problem that the market would sort out rather quickly - since if my products used French, I would stomp those that did not, since the people want their signs in French (apparently).
Why didn't that happen? Was it really the case that the problem was as extreme as it is made out to be, or that the *desire* for these rather radical xenophobia laws was really all that universal?
Quote from: HVC on September 08, 2009, 01:46:35 PM
True. i tried being "portuguese" to see if they were being dicks becasue i was anglo... they were still dicks, but it took longer becasue they didn't know portuguese.
:lol:
They just tried some rude gestures on you then?
Parisians are mean to each other. I knew one once who was amazed at Londoners giving up their seat on the tube for elderly people and pregnant women (this is standard) and she said she was amazed. She described the Parisian attitude as 'I would rather kill you than lose my seat' :lol:
It's a great city though. I've never found it terribly rude. But then I thought New York was unusually friendly.
Quote from: HVC on September 08, 2009, 01:46:35 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 08, 2009, 01:45:08 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2009, 01:42:57 PM
The difference with NYC though is that they are mean to everyone - including other New Yorkers.
Which is exactly what we were saying about Paris so that really is not a difference.
True. i tried being "portuguese" to see if they were being dicks becasue i was anglo... they were still dicks, but it took longer becasue they didn't know portuguese and my french was bad by that point in time.
They was too busy locking up the valuables.
Quote from: viper37 on September 08, 2009, 01:42:20 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 08, 2009, 01:14:35 PM
Certainly. There have been court cases of businessmen fined for not having French "predominate".
and in these cases, there was simply no french.
Quote
Moreover, it isn't really significant to my point whether the laws are enforced stringently or not, as business people doing due dilligence have to assume that they will obey the existing local laws, not flout them because they aren't strictly enforced - and plan for the costs of doing that. Which, in Quebec, always means printing up special "Quebec only" materials to conform to Quebec's bizzare language laws.
You know, nowadays, everything produced in the NAFTA is printed in English, Spanish and French at the very least.
I just bought a Polar watch last week. It came with instructions in English, French, German, Chinese, Spanish, Korean and some other.
My Windows Ultimate allow me to switch between French&English menu, as well as 40 other languages.
Silly me. Of course.
I should see that writing instructions and packaging for every language of the world is not a problem, unless you happen to ship to Quebec.
Silly me.
;)
What's a problem is that the signs which the company may have on hand for places like France will not do in Quebec, because typically they will be bilingual and so French does not "predominate" to the degree required by Quebec sensitivities.
Quote from: Valmy on September 08, 2009, 01:47:12 PM
Quote from: HVC on September 08, 2009, 01:46:35 PM
True. i tried being "portuguese" to see if they were being dicks becasue i was anglo... they were still dicks, but it took longer becasue they didn't know portuguese.
:lol:
They just tried some rude gestures on you then?
lol, i added to that. after the portuguese stuff i started speaking bad french.. it didn't help, though it was very amusing
Quote from: Valmy on September 08, 2009, 01:45:08 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2009, 01:42:57 PM
The difference with NYC though is that they are mean to everyone - including other New Yorkers.
Which is exactly what we were saying about Paris so that really is not a difference.
The perception is that the French are generally nasty to the non-French, and especially to Americans.
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2009, 01:47:08 PM
Seems like if that were the case, it would be a problem that the market would sort out rather quickly - since if my products used French, I would stomp those that did not, since the people want their signs in French (apparently).
Why didn't that happen? Was it really the case that the problem was as extreme as it is made out to be, or that the *desire* for these rather radical xenophobia laws was really all that universal?
Why it didnt happen is one of the great questions of Canadian History.
Oex would be much better able to explain it then I.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 08, 2009, 01:47:24 PM
It's a great city though. I've never found it terribly rude. But then I thought New York was unusually friendly.
Yeah I never found Parisians or New Yorkers very rude and I have visited both cities multiple times...
however I am pretty tolerant and patient with people and their foibles so I might not be a good judge. Despite the fact I love to rant and rave irrationally on Languish alot I am pretty laid back IRL. :P
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2009, 01:44:58 PM
Quote from: viper37 on September 08, 2009, 01:42:20 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 08, 2009, 01:14:35 PM
Certainly. There have been court cases of businessmen fined for not having French "predominate".
and in these cases, there was simply no french.
Quote
Moreover, it isn't really significant to my point whether the laws are enforced stringently or not, as business people doing due dilligence have to assume that they will obey the existing local laws, not flout them because they aren't strictly enforced - and plan for the costs of doing that. Which, in Quebec, always means printing up special "Quebec only" materials to conform to Quebec's bizzare language laws.
You know, nowadays, everything produced in the NAFTA is printed in English, Spanish and French at the very least.
I just bought a Polar watch last week. It came with instructions in English, French, German, Chinese, Spanish, Korean and some other.
Silly me. Of course.
I should see that writing instructions and packaging for every language of the world is not a problem, unless you happen to ship to Quebec.
Silly me.
;)
And yet....nobody needed to pass a law demanding that your watch have instructions in German, did they?
Rather, it simply made economic sense for your watch maker to include them since they would like to sell their watches to the Germans, so they did so.
No xenophobic language laws required at all...
Germans are what 60 millions?
There's about 5 millions of us in North America. THey wouldn't print anything in french. They did not before the law.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 08, 2009, 01:47:39 PM
Quote from: HVC on September 08, 2009, 01:46:35 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 08, 2009, 01:45:08 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2009, 01:42:57 PM
The difference with NYC though is that they are mean to everyone - including other New Yorkers.
Which is exactly what we were saying about Paris so that really is not a difference.
True. i tried being "portuguese" to see if they were being dicks becasue i was anglo... they were still dicks, but it took longer becasue they didn't know portuguese and my french was bad by that point in time.
They was too busy locking up the valuables.
porkchops aren't theives... we're just lazy :P
*edit* aren't
Quote from: Malthus on September 08, 2009, 01:47:44 PM
What's a problem is that the signs which the company may have on hand for places like France will not do in Quebec, because typically they will be bilingual and so French does not "predominate" to the degree required by Quebec sensitivities.
Clearly they are Imperialists then, and are not wanted in Montreal anyway.
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2009, 01:48:28 PM
The perception is that the French are generally nasty to the non-French, and especially to Americans.
Yes and I found this perception to be bunk and I have spent about 9 months altogether in France but YMMV.
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2009, 01:47:08 PM
Why didn't that happen? Was it really the case that the problem was as extreme as it is made out to be, or that the *desire* for these rather radical xenophobia laws was really all that universal?
That's a fair question & they weren't that Universal. It stirred controversies even back then.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 08, 2009, 01:49:26 PM
Germans are what 60 millions?
There's about 5 millions of us in North America. THey wouldn't print anything in french. They did not before the law.
Who is "they"?
Jesus, why doesn't Canada just let them go already?
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 08, 2009, 01:48:53 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2009, 01:47:08 PM
Seems like if that were the case, it would be a problem that the market would sort out rather quickly - since if my products used French, I would stomp those that did not, since the people want their signs in French (apparently).
Why didn't that happen? Was it really the case that the problem was as extreme as it is made out to be, or that the *desire* for these rather radical xenophobia laws was really all that universal?
Why it didnt happen is one of the great questions of Canadian History.
Oex would be much better able to explain it then I.
Just seems similar to every other complaint about "overbearing minorities" made in other places throughout history.
They are clannish, favour each other, canny in business, rude and contemptuous of the majority, etc.
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2009, 01:44:58 PM
And yet....nobody needed to pass a law demanding that your watch have instructions in German, did they?
I don't think I'm allowed to sell anything in the Euro Zone if I don't include instructions in all languages.
And I'm pretty sure I can't sell a video game in Germany if it shows blood.
Quote
Rather, it simply made economic sense for your watch maker to include them since they would like to sell their watches to the Germans, so they did so.
And prior to that law, no one bothered to sell stuff with French instructions. They did not bother to speak to us in french either.
If I do business in the US, I'm pretty sure I can't fire someone because he's Jewish and I don't like Jews.
There are laws protecting minorities.
Is the US a xenophobic country?
I think we all agree here that in an ideal country, there'd be no need for such silly laws. People would get hired based on merit, not based on racial&cultural identity.
yet, most occidental countries have such laws.
Tolerance had to be forced by the threat of judicial action.
Why? Because some people don't understand the concept of "difference" and want unicity.
Quote
No xenophobic language laws required at all...
minorities are always xenophobic, otherwise they would assimilate to the majority.
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2009, 01:51:27 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 08, 2009, 01:49:26 PM
Germans are what 60 millions?
There's about 5 millions of us in North America. THey wouldn't print anything in french. They did not before the law.
Who is "they"?
Jesus, why doesn't Canada just let them go already?
we'd have to change all the maps.
Quote from: Malthus on September 08, 2009, 01:51:43 PM
Just seems similar to every other complaint about "overbearing minorities" made in other places throughout history.
They are clannish, favour each other, canny in business, rude and contemptuous of the majority, etc.
Except that the English really did control the banks.... :P
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2009, 01:51:27 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 08, 2009, 01:49:26 PM
Germans are what 60 millions?
There's about 5 millions of us in North America. THey wouldn't print anything in french. They did not before the law.
Who is "they"?
Jesus, why doesn't Canada just let them go already?
Companies. Manufacturers.
The fact that you are both an english speaker & American is clashing with the Social mindset & Frenchness of Quebec.
Quote from: Valmy on September 08, 2009, 01:50:22 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2009, 01:48:28 PM
The perception is that the French are generally nasty to the non-French, and especially to Americans.
Yes and I found this perception to be bunk and I have spent about 9 months altogether in France but YMMV.
I believe you.
I suspect to the extent that they are rude to Americans, it is rudeness to the spaz Americans.
really, tourists in general can be such assholes.
I know when I worked at a restaurant in SF-area, we found the French tourists terrible - but then, of course, you only notice the assholes, and the perfectly nice ones you don't even really remark on at all, so in reality they are probably no more or less assholes than anyone else.
Quote from: Malthus on September 08, 2009, 01:45:14 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 08, 2009, 01:38:08 PM
The Chinese minority doesn't repress the english majority for being English tho.
How not? They give jobs to other Chinese folks, and very often have signs in Chinese only. Aren't these the examples of "repression" you've provided?
I haven't yet?
I'm about to go home, I'll tell you a little story when I get home.
Quote from: HVC on September 08, 2009, 01:52:24 PM
we'd have to change all the maps.
You were supposed to say you embrace Quebec's faults as one might be accepting of an eccentric brother in the happy joyous family that are the Canadian provinces.
Quote from: HVC on September 08, 2009, 01:41:00 PM
It's not that the parisians themselves are rude (or not in my experience anyway) it's the service that is rude. from taxi drivers to waiters and hotel staff. People who i'm used to be obnoxious pleasant coming from NA.
The issue with the infamous Parisian waiters is that many of them are people that would rather be doing something else, and there is no "retail culture" of the "customer always being right." The latter is true in Germany as well, but is counteracted in the restaurant trade by conventions of the duty of a proper host -- but you can definitely see it in high street retail. Yank tourists tend not to notice b/c most don't go to Germany to shop in the local Kaufhof (whereas tourists in Paris do tend to visit French shops that aren't solely oriented towards tourists).
In the higher end Parisian establishments, there tends to be a greater level of professionalism, although compared to US standards of service, it can still come off a brusque.
Keep in mind that to a Parisian, it can come off as very rude not to say "bonjour monsieur/madame" and s'il vous plait (please). Even if you know no French, just memorizing two two phrases can get you a long ways. My spoken French is terrible, but I always sprinkle in my bonjours, s'il vous plaits, and the polite conditional form (je voudrais). They may laugh behind my back about my poor grammar and outlandish accent without me knowing about it, but I have had little problems with direct rudeness or poor service.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 08, 2009, 01:52:56 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 08, 2009, 01:51:43 PM
Just seems similar to every other complaint about "overbearing minorities" made in other places throughout history.
They are clannish, favour each other, canny in business, rude and contemptuous of the majority, etc.
Except that the English really did control the banks.... :P
... to the extent that they did then, they still do. Only the banks, like the Bank of Montreal, are now headquartered in Toronto. :P
Quote from: Valmy on September 08, 2009, 01:54:34 PM
Quote from: HVC on September 08, 2009, 01:52:24 PM
we'd have to change all the maps.
You were supposed to say you embrace Quebec's faults as one might be accepting of an eccentric brother in the happy joyous family that are the Canadian provinces.
They're the whiny black sheep that steals from your wallet and then bitchs
And i say that with love :P
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2009, 01:53:28 PM
I suspect to the extent that they are rude to Americans, it is rudeness to the spaz Americans.
This is true. It's also the case that Americans are more identifiable. This is the downside of English being a global language I think. So everyone has a story about annoying Americans. Don't worry though, if you ever stay in hostels you'll realise everyone has such stories about almost every nationality.
But JR is right. My impression is that the French (and British) don't have the sort of service culture that exists in the US - and don't like it. Many people I know who go on holiday in the US moan about the 'intrusive' service. I think the French also value small politeness a great deal, so saying 'bonjour' when you enter a shop is something that everyone does, except foreigners being rude.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 08, 2009, 01:54:49 PM
Keep in mind that to a Parisian, it can come off as very rude not to say "bonjour monsieur/madame" and s'il vous plait (please). Even if you know no French, just memorizing two two phrases can get you a long ways. My spoken French is terrible, but I always sprinkle in my bonjours, s'il vous plaits, and the polite conditional form (je voudrais). They may laugh behind my back about my poor grammar and outlandish accent without me knowing about it, but I have had little problems with direct rudeness or poor service.
I think it is almost all perception.
If I go traveling in Europe, and get some belgian waiter who is a rude ass, I will think "Damn, that guy is a rude ass!" but if I am in France when that happens I think "Ha! Typical French!" because that little nugget of bias is already planted in my mind that the French are rude.
Actual objective evidence of their spaztickness though, like the aforementioned laws requiring that French be "predominant" make me think there is something real behind the perception though. I think I will pass on Montreal. Besides, it apparently is just like upstate New York!
Which makes me wonder why *anyone* would visit it...
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 08, 2009, 01:59:43 PM
But JR is right. My impression is that the French (and British) don't have the sort of service culture that exists in the US - and don't like it.
you know, I've been to London twice, and while there are certainly some differences (the way everyone on the tube works so hard to pretend not to notice everyone else or *gasp!* make eye contact is really funny...), the service thing I just did not see.
I ate out every day, of course, and I thought the service was excellent. Polite, reasonable attentive without being noisy, and sometimes downright friendly, especially if I was willing to make the first move and open up a conversation.
Montreal is one of the few cities in North America I really want to visit.
They are San Francisco, Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia, Montreal and Vancouver :)
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 08, 2009, 02:03:47 PM
Montreal is one of the few cities in North America I really want to visit.
Yeah, but you want to visit it BECAUSE they are French!
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 08, 2009, 02:03:47 PM
They are San Francisco, Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia, Montreal and Vancouver :)
Wow you would rather visit Philly and Boston over New York? I guess you have already been there.
Nobody ever says 'Oh wow I cannot wait to visit Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio' for some reason :P
Quote from: Malthus on September 08, 2009, 01:47:44 PM
What's a problem is that the signs which the company may have on hand for places like France will not do in Quebec, because typically they will be bilingual and so French does not "predominate" to the degree required by Quebec sensitivities.
:huh: ?
Let me reiterate: the law is applicable over outward commercial signs. There is even a provision for those who want to retain international branding. Burger King is still Burger King and not Le Roi du Burger. Nothing prevented KFC to remain KFC but they still decided to change for PFK.
Open up any sort of product: the instruction booklet doesn't have to have «predominant French». It simply needs to have a French manual. Likewise for packaging.
My anecdotal proof of the sillyness of it all, and the political nature of the opposition to Quebec's language laws, is the fact that bilingualism in commercial packaging suddenly became better as a result of NAFTA. Apparently, the Americans didn't think it was either silly nor such an overwhelming cost to their business to print the packages in three languages and to include a French booklet, usually much better translated than it used to. Likewise, any sort of strict application of the law decreased markedly from that time on.
All of these issues over enormous costs and what not seems a red herring. Large multinationals won't care about packaging; small business usually do not have lots of packaging to do and, by experience, Vermonters are strangely enough more than capable of finding / paying someone to translate their stuff once and for all. Outward commercial signs is a ridiculously tiny issue.
Much more compelling are the costs associated with operating in an environment which is culturally different, and which uses a different language in the workplace. But culturally authorizing a return to the situation pre-1950 where businesses operated in English even with Francophone workers is national suicide and of course, politically untenable. Here again, there are things were costs are simply irrelevant.
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2009, 02:04:21 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 08, 2009, 02:03:47 PM
Montreal is one of the few cities in North America I really want to visit.
Yeah, but you want to visit it BECAUSE they are French!
Yeah, but they're not like the French French. i don't think they even like the French French. If it was up to quebecers during WWII France would now be speaking a strange german dialect.
Best story I have of Paris is I was in a cafe with my friend (and having a native with you helps a lot) and the tourists was getting antsy with the slow service. My friend notices I'm getting antsy myself, she tells me to be patient, that is the way it is.
So, I sat patiently, I got my drink fairly quickly and got a nice smile from the cute waitress while the tourists blew a gasket and the waitstaff ignoring them as much as possible.
Drinks and a show.
Quote from: HVC on September 08, 2009, 02:06:09 PM
Yeah, but they're not like the French Frecnh. i don't think they even like the French French. If it was up to quebecers during WWII FRance would not be speaking a strange german dialect.
It does seem that Quebec just does not feel the affection, to the extent that we feel it, for France that we anglo-speakers do for Britain.
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2009, 02:03:26 PM
you know, I've been to London twice, and while there are certainly some differences (the way everyone on the tube works so hard to pretend not to notice everyone else or *gasp!* make eye contact is really funny...), the service thing I just did not see.
The Tube thing is brilliant. I do it, of course, but I sometimes stop and think 'it's ridiculous me pretending there's no-one else here, my face is in a stranger's armpit' :(
QuoteI ate out every day, of course, and I thought the service was excellent. Polite, reasonable attentive without being noisy, and sometimes downright friendly, especially if I was willing to make the first move and open up a conversation.
Yeah. I always think British service is better than we think it is or than our reputation suggests. Though I suspect this is largely because we've stopped employing British people as waiters.
The Brit complaint about the US is generally that service is too attentive. I found this to some extent in one place I went to in New York, but I think that's because it wasn't somewhere tourists went very often so the waiter was, I think, just curious.
Quote from: Valmy on September 08, 2009, 02:07:33 PM
Quote from: HVC on September 08, 2009, 02:06:09 PM
Yeah, but they're not like the French Frecnh. i don't think they even like the French French. If it was up to quebecers during WWII FRance would not be speaking a strange german dialect.
It does seem that Quebec just does not feel the affection, to the extent that we feel it, for France that we anglo-speakers do for Britain.
I'm not sure about america's ties with the mother land, but most other anglo nations had very close ties with Britain until very recently, something which Quebec didn't have.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 08, 2009, 02:08:32 PM
The Brit complaint about the US is generally that service is too attentive. I found this to some extent in one place I went to in New York, but I think that's because it wasn't somewhere tourists went very often so the waiter was, I think, just curious.
I do have to say it is rather annoying that it seems everytime you are in the middle of a real important or emotional conversation the waiter just bursts interrupting saying 'is everything ok?'. Of course when you do actually need them for something it seems they are never around :P
Quote from: HVC on September 08, 2009, 02:09:49 PM
I'm not sure about america's ties with the mother land, but most other anglo nations had very close ties with Britain until very recently, something which Quebec didn't have.
Well Anglophilia was one of the big forces that got us involved in both World Wars (at least as far as we helped the allies out before Germany and Japan did the stupid things they did). It would have been very hard for us to sit by while Britain was conquered by Germany but Germany never actually did that. Quebec, on the other hand, seems to have not cared in the slightest that France was actually being invaded and conquered by Germany.
I guess the lack of political ties is the main one. Plus at least we Americans traded extensively with Britain continually after we became independent.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 08, 2009, 01:20:22 PM
A dangerous assumption. Even very small businesses can get significant benefits from being able to interact with the broader market outside their immediate current clients and suppliers. Of course English strictly isn't necessary to do this, but can be very helpful especially for a business located in North America.
No one is arguing that learning English is unimportant or an interesting advantage. It is just the scenario of apocalyptic economic doom if the level of bilingualism isn't 100% in all regions of Quebec seem grossly overstated. As are the lessons over cultural isolationism, especially since, in this day and age, American shows are subtitled, there exist good press agencies in French, we have access to Francophone media, including news from Africa or Asia, etc. The fact that many Americans speak English doesn't seem to be a foolproof antidote to cultural isolationism.
Quote from: Valmy on September 08, 2009, 02:10:04 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 08, 2009, 02:08:32 PM
The Brit complaint about the US is generally that service is too attentive. I found this to some extent in one place I went to in New York, but I think that's because it wasn't somewhere tourists went very often so the waiter was, I think, just curious.
I do have to say it is rather annoying that it seems everytime you are in the middle of a real important or emotional conversation the waiter just bursts interrupting saying 'is everything ok?'. Of course when you do actually need them for something it seems they are never around :P
As someone who has spent some time serving tables, I never understood that.
I mean, it is usually rather obvious if someone wants something - they will be looking around and such. Otherwise, just making yourself visible and available is perfectly adequate. I generally refused to follow managements "rules" about how often you were supposed to go back and check on a table. One check a few minutes after meals are served, and otherwise just be around if needed while you deal with other tables.
If you notice a drink is empty (coffee, soda, whatever) just refill it. You don't have to bug them about it - just do it.
Quote from: Valmy on September 08, 2009, 02:10:04 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 08, 2009, 02:08:32 PM
The Brit complaint about the US is generally that service is too attentive. I found this to some extent in one place I went to in New York, but I think that's because it wasn't somewhere tourists went very often so the waiter was, I think, just curious.
I do have to say it is rather annoying that it seems everytime you are in the middle of a real important or emotional conversation the waiter just bursts interrupting saying 'is everything ok?'. Of course when you do actually need them for something it seems they are never around :P
I'm not sure how it works elsewhere, but i think the NA manner of service is due largly to tips. the waiter wants a tip so they're right up there trying to get you another drink before you're done your first.
I know in portugal everytime i gave a tip the waiters just thought i couldn't count. In france the more traveled areas were fine with tips, but the more out of the way places still found it odd at time. In spain i had no idea what they were saying, but they took my money.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 08, 2009, 02:07:12 PM
Best story I have of Paris is I was in a cafe with my friend (and having a native with you helps a lot) and the tourists was getting antsy with the slow service. My friend notices I'm getting antsy myself, she tells me to be patient, that is the way it is.
I always feel sorry for the French. We moan about how slow service is in cafes in Paris but I don't think we realise how slow service can seem in the UK. The French tend to have table service in cafes and bars, so I've heard that when some first enter an English cafe or bar or pub they don't realise it's counter service and they can get confused at waiting for 40 minutes without anyone asking them what they want.
QuoteWow you would rather visit Philly and Boston over New York? I guess you have already been there.
I've been to New York. And I'll return.
Oh and I forgot New Orleans.
QuoteYeah, but you want to visit it BECAUSE they are French!
But of course. Actually I'm interested in Montreal because they're French in North America. I'm always intrigued at minority cultural translation that manages to maintain their culture. I visited a German area of Brazil, I want to go to Welsh Patagonia, I'd even like to visit the white English colonies in Kenya and the public schools in India modeled on Eton (to which English couples are now sending their children because they're stricter and cheaper than English public school).
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 08, 2009, 02:13:44 PM
The fact that many Americans speak English doesn't seem to be a foolproof antidote to cultural isolationism.
:lmfao:
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 08, 2009, 02:05:47 PM
My anecdotal proof of the sillyness of it all, and the political nature of the opposition to Quebec's language laws, is the fact that bilingualism in commercial packaging suddenly became better as a result of NAFTA. Apparently, the Americans didn't think it was either silly nor such an overwhelming cost to their business to print the packages in three languages and to include a French booklet, usually much better translated than it used to. Likewise, any sort of strict application of the law decreased markedly from that time on.
All of these issues over enormous costs and what not seems a red herring. Large multinationals won't care about packaging; small business usually do not have lots of packaging to do and, by experience, Vermonters are strangely enough more than capable of finding / paying someone to translate their stuff once and for all. Outward commercial signs is a ridiculously tiny issue.
I disagree, based on anecdotal business experiences I have had in the way of my work.
It's an expense and a bother, which piled on top of others, on occasion swings the vote over where to launch.
Let's not overstate this: it isn't of necessity a deal-breaker. It's more in the line of a tie-breaker. Where other factors for launching come up even with Ontario or Alberta/BC, Quebec's inane language laws will, quite often, swing the vote.
Quote from: HVC on September 08, 2009, 02:13:50 PMI'm not sure how it works elsewhere, but i think the NA manner of service is due largly to tips. the waiter wants a tip so they're right up there trying to get you another drink before you're done your first.
Exactly - and since most servers are largely incompetent, they substitute quantity of service for quality of service, when they can.
What always annoyed me was that the real way to make good money as a server was having nice tits you were willing to show off. That pretty much trumped anything else.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 08, 2009, 01:36:15 PM
Not the same. Business that decide not to do business in Israel do so because they either have some ideological opposition to very notion of the state or because they are intimidated by those that do. What Malthus is talking about is deciding not to business because of costs of complying with bureaucratic or regulatory hassles.
And I believe that was Malthus is describing is rather the same, but in this day&age it appears rather badly to discriminate against a particular group of people, so you find another justification.
Nearly a century ago it was trendy to be anti-semitic & generally racist. Now it isn't.
So if I hate Jews and I don't want to do business in Israel with my multinational corporation, I'll invent some lame excuse, like "security risks" in this case, for example.
Here, it's "bureaucratic hassle". We do have a problem with bureaucracy, but that has not much to do with 'language laws'. In fact, I'd say it's equally hard to do business in French than in English.
Quote
Apparently it is easier to do business in English in Israel (or France or that matter!) than in is in a province of Canada, which should give some pause.
I don't know of any business in France that forbid the use of French or advertise only in english.
Never been to Israel, so I don't really know about the businesses there, and in fact I don't know much about modern Israel at all, but I suspect a business there having signs only in Arabic and having mandatory use of Arabic at the work place would have some problems, legal or otherwise.
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2009, 02:17:20 PM
Quote from: HVC on September 08, 2009, 02:13:50 PMI'm not sure how it works elsewhere, but i think the NA manner of service is due largly to tips. the waiter wants a tip so they're right up there trying to get you another drink before you're done your first.
Exactly - and since most servers are largely incompetent, they substitute quantity of service for quality of service, when they can.
What always annoyed me was that the real way to make good money as a server was having nice tits you were willing to show off. That pretty much trumped anything else.
odd, i couldn't see your post until i quoted it.
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2009, 02:17:20 PM
What always annoyed me was that the real way to make good money as a server was having nice tits you were willing to show off. That pretty much trumped anything else.
Being attractive is an advantage almost anywhere in life.
Are you really arguing that large multi-national corporations decide to forgo doing business in Montreal vice Toronto because they are racists, rather than because they don't want to deal with the inane language laws?
That is simply...well, laughable. Your typical large corp would do business with a Jewish Black Worshipper of Satan that spoke pigdin French if they were going to make money doing so.
Quote from: viper37 on September 08, 2009, 02:18:29 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 08, 2009, 01:36:15 PM
Not the same. Business that decide not to do business in Israel do so because they either have some ideological opposition to very notion of the state or because they are intimidated by those that do. What Malthus is talking about is deciding not to business because of costs of complying with bureaucratic or regulatory hassles.
And I believe that was Malthus is describing is rather the same, but in this day&age it appears rather badly to discriminate against a particular group of people, so you find another justification.
Nearly a century ago it was trendy to be anti-semitic & generally racist. Now it isn't.
So if I hate Jews and I don't want to do business in Israel with my multinational corporation, I'll invent some lame excuse, like "security risks" in this case, for example.
Here, it's "bureaucratic hassle". We do have a problem with bureaucracy, but that has not much to do with 'language laws'. In fact, I'd say it's equally hard to do business in French than in English.
If you think that, you are dead wrong.
The businesses I deal with (mainly, multinationals based in either Europe or America) could not care less about petty Canadian concerns about disliking Quebequois.
Quote from: HVC on September 08, 2009, 02:19:54 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2009, 02:17:20 PM
Quote from: HVC on September 08, 2009, 02:13:50 PMI'm not sure how it works elsewhere, but i think the NA manner of service is due largly to tips. the waiter wants a tip so they're right up there trying to get you another drink before you're done your first.
Exactly - and since most servers are largely incompetent, they substitute quantity of service for quality of service, when they can.
What always annoyed me was that the real way to make good money as a server was having nice tits you were willing to show off. That pretty much trumped anything else.
odd, i couldn't see your post until i quoted it.
I messed up the initial post, and then edited it.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 08, 2009, 01:15:01 PM
My intention is not to give you a lesson in bilingualism. The math is simple. If a small percentage of the population of Quebec can speak English then you have a small pool of people from which you can draw from for the talent to deal with the English speaking world. Those people who cannot speak English must then rely on the bilingual speakers for economic relations with the English speaking world.
Indeed, but by all accounts all of these concerns are grossly unfounded.
According to the latest data, 40,5% of Quebecers declare themselves bilingual. That percentage is 10,3% in Canada. Studies also show that level of bilingualism is systematically underestimated in Quebec and overestimated elsewhere in Canada. In other words, English-second-language speakers in Quebec tend to devaluate the quality of their English (because we have examples of very bilingual persons around us) while French-second-language speakers outside of Quebec tend to overestimate their level of mastery (because the French they possess usually permit them to do simple task in that language).
QuoteIf you have found a solution to this obvious problem then more power to you. Not only can you speak more languages then I but you are obviously much more intelligent as well. :)
I haven't. I was not aiming specifically you, I simply found the cries over the problems of unilingualism to be annoying. It was never my intention to insult your intelligence, which I respect greatly, since I always enjoy our Canadian political debates.
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2009, 02:22:23 PM
I messed up the initial post, and then edited it.
I see nothing wrong with editing posts -_-
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 08, 2009, 02:22:40 PM
I simply found the cries over the problems of unilingualism to be annoying.
That is what all the people who try to push for English language only in the southern US say.
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2009, 02:21:43 PM
Are you really arguing that large multi-national corporations decide to forgo doing business in Montreal vice Toronto because they are racists, rather than because they don't want to deal with the inane language laws?
That is simply...well, laughable. Your typical large corp would do business with a Jewish Black Worshipper of Satan that spoke pigdin French if they were going to make money doing so.
This, times two.
Really, the level of paranoia is high.
i respect you a lot Viper, and in this you are only saying what many of your co-provincials think - but I must say it is utterly divorced from reality on this point.
Quote from: Malthus on September 08, 2009, 01:47:44 PM
What's a problem is that the signs which the company may have on hand for places like France will not do in Quebec, because typically they will be bilingual and so French does not "predominate" to the degree required by Quebec sensitivities.
a sign is a big physical thing. And you have various regulations, in cities, provinces and countries about what is acceptable and where
You really think that companies will have these signs made in France to import over here?
Let's quit being silly please. These signs are built in Quebec or Ontario or United States. Custom made for the clients.
Looking around me, I see such businesses as Future Shop, Subway and McDonald's, all of them companies who originate from outside of Quebec, and they have no problem with the French.
Actually, Future Shop had a lot problems with French, until they were sold to an American company.
Then everything became 100% bilingual.
On the top of my head, the big companies I remember who went to court and had complaints about our laws were: Sears, Zellers, Simpson's, Laura Secord, Sun Life, and some SMBs owned by anglo-Quebecers.
Funny how things are. American businesses seems to have less problems with our language laws than Canadian ones. Hey. Go figure ;)
Ce sont des enfilades comme celles-ci, alors que l'on ne s'entend habituellement sur rien de rien, qui me prouvent que le Québec est une nation... ;)
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 08, 2009, 02:33:35 PM
Ce sont des enfilades comme celles-ci, alors que l'on ne s'entend habituellement sur rien de rien, qui me prouvent que le Québec est une nation... ;)
really, you should have included english at half the size, it'd only be fair :P
Quote from: HVC on September 08, 2009, 02:41:02 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 08, 2009, 02:33:35 PM
Ce sont des enfilades comme celles-ci, alors que l'on ne s'entend habituellement sur rien de rien, qui me prouvent que le Québec est une nation... ;)
really, you should have included english at half the size, it'd only be fair :P
being so very concerned about the rights of the predominant language, I am sure Oex will be posting this in twice the size, in English, shortly.
He is a fair and objective man, after all.
Quote from: HVC on September 08, 2009, 02:41:02 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 08, 2009, 02:33:35 PM
Ce sont des enfilades comme celles-ci, alors que l'on ne s'entend habituellement sur rien de rien, qui me prouvent que le Québec est une nation... ;)
really, you should have included english at half the size, it'd only be fair :P
Votre souhait est mon ordre. :D
Truly, Vip, threads like this one, when we usually agree on nothing, prove to me Quebec is truly a nation.
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 08, 2009, 02:44:55 PM
Quote from: HVC on September 08, 2009, 02:41:02 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 08, 2009, 02:33:35 PM
Ce sont des enfilades comme celles-ci, alors que l'on ne s'entend habituellement sur rien de rien, qui me prouvent que le Québec est une nation... ;)
really, you should have included english at half the size, it'd only be fair :P
Votre souhait est mon ordre. :D
Truly, Vip, threads like this one, when we usually agree on nothing, prove to me Quebec is truly a nation.
Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer!
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 08, 2009, 02:44:55 PM
Quote from: HVC on September 08, 2009, 02:41:02 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 08, 2009, 02:33:35 PM
Ce sont des enfilades comme celles-ci, alors que l'on ne s'entend habituellement sur rien de rien, qui me prouvent que le Québec est une nation... ;)
really, you should have included english at half the size, it'd only be fair :P
Votre souhait est mon ordre. :D
Truly, Vip, threads like this one, when we usually agree on nothing, prove to me Quebec is truly a nation.
Merci
thank you :lol: i understood most of your post... well everything after the first comma at least :D
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2009, 02:00:52 PM
If I go traveling in Europe, and get some belgian waiter who is a rude ass, I will think "Damn, that guy is a rude ass!" but if I am in France when that happens I think "Ha! Typical French!" because that little nugget of bias is already planted in my mind that the French are rude.
http://xkcd.com/385/
Quote from: Valmy on September 08, 2009, 02:12:11 PM
Quebec, on the other hand, seems to have not cared in the slightest that France was actually being invaded and conquered by Germany.
that's a common misconception spread by the English Canadians.
During the First World War, it was seen by French Quebecers as it was: a traditional European conflict, just like the Boers war was a British Empire war and the people of Quebec didn't feel the need to get involved, not even pay for "volunteers" to fight in that war.
So, when Canada entered war with Germany at the same time Great Britain declared war (we were still officially a colony back then), most French Canadians were reluctant to fight for a foreign country (UK) and fight in a foreign war for something that did not really concern them. I'd say it's the same mindset that prevailed in the USA at the time: not our fight. So, the English Canadians decided to tried the same recruitment tactict they did with their people, appealing to the patriotic values of the Motherland, albeit this time they changed "Mother England" for "Mother France".
And it was a failure. French Canadians had no more desire to fight for France than to fight for England, and Canada not actually being a real country at the time, volunteer recruitment was pretty low.
And there was only mixed regiments, were french canadians often took order from english officers.
Then came WWII.
And that was a different matter.
For starters, this time we had language based regiment, were officers and soldiers were all French speaking or all english speaking.
And actually, as a % of the population, volunteer recruitment was higher in Quebec than in the rest of Canada.
But people don't really like to be forced to do something, so there was a lot of opposition to the idea of Conscription. There were people totally opposed to the war, but for the majority of the population, they simply opposed to forced recruitment. Probably more so than the English Canadians.
And at the time (1939-1940; conscription was voted in 1941, despite MacKinzie-King promise of not doing so).
So, many Canadians to this day still believe that French Canadians never wanted to fight in the war, wich is simply not true. English & French Canadians fought in this war, but on both sides, it can be argued that volunteer recruitment was too low.
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 08, 2009, 02:33:35 PM
Ce sont des enfilades comme celles-ci, alors que l'on ne s'entend habituellement sur rien de rien, qui me prouvent que le Québec est une nation... ;)
Aucun doutes là-dessus! :D
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2009, 02:13:47 PM
As someone who has spent some time serving tables, I never understood that.
I mean, it is usually rather obvious if someone wants something - they will be looking around and such. Otherwise, just making yourself visible and available is perfectly adequate. I generally refused to follow managements "rules" about how often you were supposed to go back and check on a table. One check a few minutes after meals are served, and otherwise just be around if needed while you deal with other tables.
If you notice a drink is empty (coffee, soda, whatever) just refill it. You don't have to bug them about it - just do it.
The best service I get is the service I hardly notice and my needs are met before I even realize I have them.
Like your example of filling hte water glass.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 08, 2009, 02:57:59 PM
The best service I get is the service I hardly notice and my needs are met before I even realize I have them.
Like your example of filling hte water glass.
Yeah. The less I notice you the more I tip. Although sometimes it's nice to have the whole small-talk thing sometimes.
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 08, 2009, 02:22:40 PM
According to the latest data, 40,5% of Quebecers declare themselves bilingual. That percentage is 10,3% in Canada. Studies also show that level of bilingualism is systematically underestimated in Quebec and overestimated elsewhere in Canada. In other words, English-second-language speakers in Quebec tend to devaluate the quality of their English (because we have examples of very bilingual persons around us) while French-second-language speakers outside of Quebec tend to overestimate their level of mastery (because the French they possess usually permit them to do simple task in that language).
That is very interesting and a huge number for bilingual speakers in Quebec. Although given my experience there I should not be all that surprised. It often struck me that people were at first hestitant to speak English because they thought they did not speak very well when in fact they spoke extremely well - which confirms what you were saying.
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 08, 2009, 02:33:35 PM
Ce sont des enfilades comme celles-ci, alors que l'on ne s'entend habituellement sur rien de rien, qui me prouvent que le Québec est une nation... ;)
Indeed. But then again I've said it before and I'll keep on saying it, if only to piss in the face of our canadian posters' conceits, their nation is based on the denial of ours. All sorts of convoluted arguments are constantly used to justify said denial. And nowhere is it more obvious than when it comes to our language laws. *shrug*
G.
Quote from: Grallon on September 08, 2009, 03:02:18 PM
Indeed. But then again I've said it before and I'll keep on saying it, if only to piss in the face of our canadian posters' conceits, their nation is based on the denial of ours. All sorts of convoluted arguments are constantly used to justify said denial. And nowhere is it more obvious than when it comes to our language laws. *shrug*
G.
Actually, on a daily basis no one really thinks about quebec, language laws or not. And if denail and hate creates a nation, then Toronto is a nation onto itself since far more canadians (even within the nation of quebec :D) hate Toronto :lol:.
Quote from: Grallon on September 08, 2009, 03:02:18 PM
Indeed. But then again I've said it before and I'll keep on saying it, if only to piss in the face of our canadian posters' conceits, their nation is based on the denial of ours.
G.
Grallon, what does this mean?
As a non-Canadian, I literally do not understand this idea - at all. If the Qebecois do not consider themselves part of Canada, why don't they simply leave - doesn't the Canadian constitution allow for that?
I am having some trouble understanding this idea that the Quebecois are some kind of oppressed minority in Canada of all places.
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2009, 03:07:04 PM
Quote from: Grallon on September 08, 2009, 03:02:18 PM
Indeed. But then again I've said it before and I'll keep on saying it, if only to piss in the face of our canadian posters' conceits, their nation is based on the denial of ours.
G.
Grallon, what does this mean?
As a non-Canadian, I literally do not understand this idea - at all. If the Qebecois do not consider themselves part of Canada, why don't they simply leave - doesn't the Canadian constitution allow for that?
They tried. the majority of quebecers do feel themselves canadian.
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2009, 03:07:04 PM
As a non-Canadian, I literally do not understand this idea - at all. If the Qebecois do not consider themselves part of Canada, why don't they simply leave - doesn't the Canadian constitution allow for that?
The Canadian constitution, being the establishment of a new Dominion of the Empire, does not allow for the constituent points being granted self-rule to leave their Dominion-ness, no.
It doesn't no.
What Ulmont said.
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2009, 03:07:04 PM
As a non-Canadian, I literally do not understand this idea - at all. If the Qebecois do not consider themselves part of Canada, why don't they simply leave - doesn't the Canadian constitution allow for that?
Maybe because the Quebec voters have continually voted leaving down? Quebec is, for better or worse for richer or poorer, married to Canada.
Quote from: viper37 on September 08, 2009, 02:18:29 PM
I don't know of any business in France that forbid the use of French or advertise only in english.
No that would be silly and counterproductive. But trying getting a job these days in a French investment bank without speaking english.
QuoteNever been to Israel, so I don't really know about the businesses there, and in fact I don't know much about modern Israel at all, but I suspect a business there having signs only in Arabic and having mandatory use of Arabic at the work place would have some problems, legal or otherwise.
Wrong - Arabic is an official language of the State of Israel.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 08, 2009, 03:15:05 PM
Wrong - Arabic is an official language of the State of Israel.
Have you been drinking again? It's
Jews who live in Israel. Jews.
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2009, 03:07:04 PM
I am having some trouble understanding this idea that the Quebecois are some kind of oppressed minority in Canada of all places.
I'm going to tell you a story.
Gather round people, Grey Fox is going to tell you a little story. It's going to be full of grammatical errors & abrutly ended Senteces. The Grammar Nazis will go insane. It's going to be an hoot!
For the purposes of this story, Berkut is a unilangual French Speaking Beauceron who owns a little Cesna plane.
It's 1964, Berkut is flying into a Regional Airport in Mauricie. I'm the Air Traffic Controler directing him. I speak English & French, Berkut French only. In what language are the information being transmitted between us? In English of course. That make sense right? We both speak French but we can't use it. At some point some realize that was stupid & brought it up to Parliament. The Anglos went insane! Don't allow French, it'll cause accidents! Pilots will die! Passangers too! Some listen, some didn't, Law was changed that in Regional Airports French could be used.
Fastforward 10 years into the future. Berkut has learned English & upgraded to being a Commercial Pilot for Air Canada. I'm the ATC in the Montreal airport Tower. He speaks French, I speak French. I'm directing him, in English of course. French would kill him, his crew & his passengers, obviously. At some point someone took a Stand & said it's enough. Cause an Uproar the anglos went batshit insane this time. Took it up everywhere & anywhere. They took it up so much that it's sometime credited to being the final straw that lock the first Parti Quebecois victory in 1976.
Quote from: viper37 on September 08, 2009, 02:30:50 PM
Funny how things are. American businesses seems to have less problems with our language laws than Canadian ones. Hey. Go figure ;)
All multinational businesses are used to dealing to weird national laws in all the places they operate. Complying with local regulation is just a cost of doing business. Of course, costs add up, and at the margin they influence investment. Do we put our next branch in Peoria, or Quebec City or Hong Kong - it is just a calculation of costs of benefits.
In the grand scheme is something like the Quebec signage regulations a big deal? Probably not - and certainly not for very large savvy multinationals like McDonalds that are used to making subtle and not-so-subtle modifications to local markets. Indeed were the regs repealed tomorrow, it probably would have little impact on behavior by such groups, because they would be careful not to wish to offend local opinion regardless of what the law said.
For smaller companies, the cost is incrementally greater. Again - is it a big deal compared to other issues? Probably not in most cases. But it is an incremental marginal cost - and why would you want to impose such a thing if you didn't need to?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment link=topic=2146.msg103741#msg103741and why would you want to impose such a thing if you didn't need to?
That's exactly the point, we need to.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 08, 2009, 02:15:41 PM
Oh and I forgot New Orleans.
I was going to say 'Isn't the francophile forgetting somewhere?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 08, 2009, 03:22:55 PM
Quote from: viper37 on September 08, 2009, 02:30:50 PM
Funny how things are. American businesses seems to have less problems with our language laws than Canadian ones. Hey. Go figure ;)
All multinational businesses are used to dealing to weird national laws in all the places they operate. Complying with local regulation is just a cost of doing business. Of course, costs add up, and at the margin they influence investment. Do we put our next branch in Peoria, or Quebec City or Hong Kong - it is just a calculation of costs of benefits.
In the grand scheme is something like the Quebec signage regulations a big deal? Probably not - and certainly not for very large savvy multinationals like McDonalds that are used to making subtle and not-so-subtle modifications to local markets. Indeed were the regs repealed tomorrow, it probably would have little impact on behavior by such groups, because they would be careful not to wish to offend local opinion regardless of what the law said.
For smaller companies, the cost is incrementally greater. Again - is it a big deal compared to other issues? Probably not in most cases. But it is an incremental marginal cost - and why would you want to impose such a thing if you didn't need to?
And it doesn't make much sense to compare retail places with non-retail. Of course McDonals will make whatever accomodation is needed to serve a new market - that is where their customers are!
But when you are talking about corporations that are decided where to put administrative staff, why deal with a bunch of bizarro language laws if you don't have to?
So the corporate (or regional) HQs go to Toronto, rather than Montreal. Sure, they may still open offices in Quebec, because they want to make money off those 5 million French speaking Canadians.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 08, 2009, 03:22:03 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2009, 03:07:04 PM
I am having some trouble understanding this idea that the Quebecois are some kind of oppressed minority in Canada of all places.
I'm going to tell you a story.
Gather round people, Grey Fox is going to tell you a little story. It's going to be full of grammatical errors & abrutly ended Senteces. The Grammar Nazis will go insane. It's going to be an hoot!
For the purposes of this story, Berkut is a unilangual French Speaking Beauceron who owns a little Cesna plane.
It's 1964, Berkut is flying into a Regional Airport in Mauricie. I'm the Air Traffic Controler directing him. I speak English & French, Berkut French only. In what language are the information being transmitted between us? In English of course. That make sense right? We both speak French but we can't use it. At some point some realize that was stupid & brought it up to Parliament. The Anglos went insane! Don't allow French, it'll cause accidents! Pilots will die! Passangers too! Some listen, some didn't, Law was changed that in Regional Airports French could be used.
Fastforward 10 years into the future. Berkut has learned English & upgraded to being a Commercial Pilot for Air Canada. I'm the ATC in the Montreal airport Tower. He speaks French, I speak French. I'm directing him, in English of course. French would kill him, his crew & his passengers, obviously. At some point someone took a Stand & said it's enough. Cause an Uproar the anglos went batshit insane this time. Took it up everywhere & anywhere. They took it up so much that it's sometime credited to being the final straw that lock the first Parti Quebecois victory in 1976.
This is it? Really?
This is your example of the oppression suffered by the French in Quebec - the fact that the internationally accepted language of air traffic control is English?
Quote
Fastforward 10 years into the future. Berkut has learned English & upgraded to being a Commercial Pilot for Air Canada. I'm the ATC in the Montreal airport Tower. He speaks French, I speak French. I'm directing him, in English of course. French would kill him, his crew & his passengers, obviously.
I don't know much about air traffic control, but I can certainly understand the basic idea that it would be swell if everyone up there flying around did so using the same language.
Sure, you are the ATC guy might understand each other fine, but will everyone else? Should the pilot be wondering which dialect or language he should be using when he flies in? What about the other aircraft in the area - can they understand what is going on?
If the ATC guy speaks in French to the French pilots, will his English be very good when speaking to the German pilots? Will he accidently speak French to a Spanish pilot, thinking maybe the pilot was French? Will the Spanish pilot mis-understand something said in French to the french pilot, and do something he should not?
I think a common language for all the people involved in guiding airplanes through the skies doesn't seem like such a terrible idea. And the idea that everyone flying planes should speak a common language is an example of oppression...wow - that makes me even more coming down on the side of the other Canadians. If that is your idea of oppression, and "predominantly french" nonsense on bi-lingual signs and making non-French signs illegal is your idea of reasonable response...damn, I suspect you all are simply a bit sensitive over very little.
Not the fact that it's english. But the fact that 2 french speaking people can't use their own language because people around them might not understand.
2 Mexican, a pilot & a ATC. Do they speak English?
We are sensitive over this. There's 300 years of being put down behind it.
Also, I believe there's no way for you to even understand how we feel as a culture, society & people.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 08, 2009, 04:03:04 PM
Not the fact that it's english. But the fact that 2 french speaking people can't use their own language because people around them might not understand.
2 Mexican, a pilot & a ATC. Do they speak English?
We are sensitive over this. There's 300 years of being put down behind it.
Also, I believe there's no way for you to even understand how we feel as a culture, society & people.
Your people is incredibly retarded and unlikable.
Grow. Up.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 08, 2009, 04:03:04 PM
Also, I believe there's no way for you to even understand how we feel as a culture, society & people.
The only people ever "oppressed"? :yeahright:
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 08, 2009, 04:03:04 PM
Not the fact that it's english. But the fact that 2 french speaking people can't use their own language because people around them might not understand.
2 Mexican, a pilot & a ATC. Do they speak English?
We are sensitive over this. There's 300 years of being put down behind it.
Also, I believe there's no way for you to even understand how we feel as a culture, society & people.
As a Francophone pilot he probably does. He just doesn't see your feelings as relevant since he became an Uncle Tom for The (Anglophone) Man.
Quote from: garbon on September 08, 2009, 04:09:05 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 08, 2009, 04:03:04 PM
Also, I believe there's no way for you to even understand how we feel as a culture, society & people.
The only people ever "oppressed"? :yeahright:
you've got a rich white momma, you can't play the opressed race card :lol:
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 08, 2009, 04:03:04 PM
2 Mexican, a pilot & a ATC. Do they speak English?
I thought all ATC-pilot interaction was in English as international language :mellow:
Quote from: HVC on September 08, 2009, 04:11:22 PM
you've got a rich white momma, you can't play the opressed race card :lol:
Who said I was playing any card...and if I was, do you really think race would be the first card that I'd play? :yeahright:
Quote from: garbon on September 08, 2009, 04:13:05 PM
Quote from: HVC on September 08, 2009, 04:11:22 PM
you've got a rich white momma, you can't play the opressed race card :lol:
Who said I was playing any card...and if I was, do you really think race would be the first card that I'd play? :yeahright:
I would guess a scented business card, just like Peter Lorre in the Maltese Falcon.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 08, 2009, 04:11:43 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 08, 2009, 04:03:04 PM
2 Mexican, a pilot & a ATC. Do they speak English?
I thought all ATC-pilot interaction was in English as international language :mellow:
I find the idea that this is a Bad Thing simply astounding.
Almost as astounding as it as the response to my request for examples of how oppressive being a french speaking Canadian is - wow, Air Traffic Control. It isn't exactly being forced to sit at the back of the bus or tolerate the (not so) occasional lynching, is it?
Funny how much humans enjoy being a victim.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 08, 2009, 04:03:04 PM
Not the fact that it's english. But the fact that 2 french speaking people can't use their own language because people around them might not understand.
The guys in your example are
aircraft controllers. I can well imagine a situation in which it would be more than slightly important that other airplane pilots in the sky understand what they are saying to pilot #1.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 08, 2009, 04:16:40 PM
I would guess a scented business card, just like Peter Lorre in the Maltese Falcon.
Would you believe that I've lost my business cards? :weep:
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2009, 04:21:57 PM
Almost as astounding as it as the response to my request for examples of how oppressive being a french speaking Canadian is - wow, Air Traffic Control. It isn't exactly being forced to sit at the back of the bus or tolerate the (not so) occasional lynching, is it?
Funny how much humans enjoy being a victim.
At the very least he could have said about how they are demonize and they grow up being told that their way of life is a sin.
Quote from: garbon on September 08, 2009, 04:33:40 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2009, 04:21:57 PM
Almost as astounding as it as the response to my request for examples of how oppressive being a french speaking Canadian is - wow, Air Traffic Control. It isn't exactly being forced to sit at the back of the bus or tolerate the (not so) occasional lynching, is it?
Funny how much humans enjoy being a victim.
At the very least he could have said about how they are demonize and they grow up being told that their way of life is a sin.
Francophone aircraft controllers I don't have a problem with.
Gay ones now - they'd spend all their time gossiping and bitching about the pilots, and cause plane crashes.
:P
I know that most of you guys don't understand French.
but this doc explains much better the issue I was trying to describe : http://www.radio-canada.ca/emissions/tout_le_monde_en_parlait/2009/Reportage.asp?idDoc=84876
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 08, 2009, 03:15:05 PM
No that would be silly and counterproductive. But trying getting a job these days in a French investment bank without speaking english.
Same here.
I don't think you understand the point Oex and I are trying to make.
We do not support unilingualism. and I think I speak for Oex when saying that we both, in fact, want our people to be as much bilingual (english&french) as possible and even learn one more language (spanish has some use, for example).
Ah, how should I explain... Being forced to learn a foreign language for daily live, of just to communicate with your boss, in a province where the majority of the people speak your native tongue is not the same as learning a language for casual or event frequent use at your workplace with clients that speak only english.
Interacting with foreigners in a foreign language is one thing. Having to interact with people living here who are simply too lazy to bother learning the language of the majority, that I would never accept.
If I move to Germany, I'll learn German, even if I'm pretty sure I could get by with just English. Same with Belgium, I'd learn Dutch if I was in Brussel or Flanders.
I don't expect tourists to learn French just to visit my province. Even in my small home town they can usually manage to get bilingual service at McDonald's or Subway and I'm fine with that (I wish them good luck if they need to go to an hospital though... ;) )
However, I'm always annoyed of being spoken to in English in Montreal. Heck, I once nearly left a restaurant because the waitress did not want to give me a French menu. It was only at the insistance of my english speaking friends that she gave me one and started speaking to me in French.
And that's not 1950. In 1950, there would have been no French menu at all.
It's little things like that begins to annoy people.
Quote
Wrong - Arabic is an official language of the State of Israel.
Then I stand corrected. There must be tons of businesses advertizing only in Arabic?
And I suppose it's the norm in many parts of Israel when you don't get a job if you don't speak Arabic, and where you're denied services because you don't speak Arabic?
There was a common saying in Montreal, once upon a time, that was "Speak white or leave". Meaning, speak english or go away.
Imagine a Israeli citizen walking in Jerusalem, and asking a question to a merchant in Yiddish. He's then told to speak the language of the Prophet or go away.
And to most places you go in Jerusalem, that would be the same thing.
That was Montreal in the 1950s.
The language laws are sometimes strict, and way too bureaucratic, and I'd love nothing more than some flexibility to it.
But removing them completely is akin to surrender.
Quote from: Malthus on September 08, 2009, 04:29:30 PM
The guys in your example are aircraft controllers. I can well imagine a situation in which it would be more than slightly important that other airplane pilots in the sky understand what they are saying to pilot #1.
Meeting at a Federal government work place, in Quebec.
5 French speakers.
1 English speaker.
Everyone speaks english.
If I was in Ontario and be the only one speaking French, do you think everyone would hold the meeting in French?
Having seen it first eye, the answer is no ;)
And no, I did not complain, nor did I feel insulted.
But in Quebec, I felt a little annoyed that someone could get a job there without first being bilingual.
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2009, 03:07:04 PM
As a non-Canadian, I literally do not understand this idea - at all. If the Qebecois do not consider themselves part of Canada, why don't they simply leave - doesn't the Canadian constitution allow for that?
No the canadian constitution doesn't allow explicitly for secession, Although, and ironically, it's the federal government, in the wake of the 2 referenda on the question, that legitimized such a position by asking the supreme court to express its opinion on the so-called 'Clarity Bill' voted after the '95 referendum. And the supreme justices were of the opinion that should Quebec, or any other province/territory, meet the requirements stated in the bill (clear question, significant percentage (60%) in favor, possibly other things - I haven't the text handy), then the federal state would be under the obligation to negotiate a settlement.
As for why a majority has rejected twice the chance to leave the federation... There are multiple reasons and it's probably a combination of those. The fact that as a people we represent only 2-3% of the total population of North America; the fact that as member of this federation we benefit from it; the fact that we are the original canadians (before there were any anglophones around); the fact we would experience a temporary decrease in our living conditions (nothing apocalyptic contrary to the opposite camp's propaganda, but significant nonetheless); the fact we often feel insecure collectively thanks to our history... As you can see, a jumble of reasons/emotions that Oex can express at lenght and more eloquently than I take the time to do now.
QuoteI am having some trouble understanding this idea that the Quebecois are some kind of oppressed minority in Canada of all places.
When I used the word denial I didn't mean opression; though our history is littered with... not outright/active oppression as much as a succession of slights that piled up until the first independantist movements appeared in 1960. In the wake of the decolonization elsewhere at the time, and our own little internal revolution in the 60s, the secessionist idea gained momentum and culminated in the referenda of 80 and 95.
The fact that these attempts were inconclusive doens't mean all is well, but many anglo-canadians have this tendency of being annoyed whenever quebecers voice criticisms or grievances. You can witness it in this very thread and others about internal canadian issues. You'll often hear them saying we are nothing but whinny crybabies. That in itself is demonstration of the denial I mentioned.
What you need to understand is that a great many anglo-canadians beleive the propaganda stating that Canada is one nation composed of many cultural groups (the canadian version of multiculturalism, itself is part of the nation building effort of the central state). Thus there is no room in that ideology for admitting the existance of an associated nation in the federation. Or else, when the admission is made, it's to bring down quebecers to the level of the so-called 'first nations'... You can see, in that light, why our excellent neighboors get irritated by what they perceive as their country kowtowing to the demands of one of its many minorites.
The thing is, we quebecers, while attached to Canada, view ourselves, by and large, not as a minority, but as a majority. We have perceived ourselves as such since before the conquest and the arrival of british subjects here. In fact you can find comments about this phenomenon in XVIIth century texts made by jesuit priests and french colonial administrators. We have a territory, a history, institutions, customs and a language that validate this sentiment. So you can understand why being repeatedly told we're canadians like any others and as such shouldn't expect 'favor treatments' can be somewhat alienating.
Basically they are of the opinion the '
national' government should not cater to the 'whims' of a minority - while we are of the opinion the '
federal' government (since our national govt is based in Quebec City) should consider the wishes of an associated nation.
As you can see, there's no agreement on the basic concepts underlying this country. However since the anglos have greater numerical numbers, it creates the illusion that their definition is the correct one.
Do you understand the idea of denial I was refering to now?
G.
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2009, 01:20:00 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 08, 2009, 01:15:35 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2009, 01:02:35 PM
Even if it is not true (and honestly, I have no idea) there is certainly the perception that it is true. For example, I would never visit Quebec because of that perception - if I was visiting Canada, there are lots of places that seem just as nice where I won't have to run the risk of dealing with some spaz who is going to act like an ass because I don't speak French.
So you would specifically choose not to travel to a place because there is a "perception" that people might be rude or because there is some risk someone might be rude? On that basis, how could you visit anyplace? In my experience, people are capable of being a "spaz" and acting like an ass in any language.
Certainly languish is proof that English speakers are not immune. :D
Wasn't my post rather clear that I was choosing to go somewhere else due to the fact that "somewhere else" does not share the same perception that there is THIS particular problem?
Sure, if Quebec had some awesomely great reason to visit that trumped this (compared to other options), then I would go - but I don't know that it does, so why deal with the problem if there is no good reason to do so?
All other things being equal, why choose the place with the perception that they are going to be asshole unless I speak, or pretend to try to speak, a language I do not speak?
I guess I might go if I got to travel enough that I went and saw the other places I wanted to see already, but since that is not the case...the odds of Quebec ever making it to the top of my destination list are considerably reduced.
Oh noes.
QuoteI am having some trouble understanding this idea that the Quebecois are some kind of oppressed minority in Canada of all places.
You've never been told to speak white.
That was in the
1990s. I wanted to kill the old fuck.
I voted yes instead :frog:
Quote from: Zoupa on September 08, 2009, 11:44:42 PM
QuoteI am having some trouble understanding this idea that the Quebecois are some kind of oppressed minority in Canada of all places.
You've never been told to speak white.
That was in the 1990s. I wanted to kill the old fuck.
I voted yes instead :frog:
That does sound terrible. Your emoangst is understandable.
Quote from: Grallon on September 08, 2009, 10:08:55 PM
Do you understand the idea of denial I was refering to now?
G.
I guess - however, now that I understand the basis much better, I find I am even less impressed by the legitimacy of the complaint than I was when I was largely ignorant about it's basis.
But I appreciate the explanation.
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2009, 06:37:14 AM
I guess - however, now that I understand the basis much better, I find I am even less impressed by the legitimacy of the complaint than I was when I was largely ignorant about it's basis.
But I appreciate the explanation.
*shrug* Whether or not you approve of the arguments is not terribly relevant since it concerns those directly involved. But you asked a question and I tried responding in earnest.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on September 09, 2009, 07:20:13 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2009, 06:37:14 AM
I guess - however, now that I understand the basis much better, I find I am even less impressed by the legitimacy of the complaint than I was when I was largely ignorant about it's basis.
But I appreciate the explanation.
*shrug* Whether or not you approve of the arguments is not terribly relevant since it concerns those directly involved. But you asked a question and I tried responding in earnest.
G.
And I appreciate that you did so.
Quote from: viper37 on September 08, 2009, 08:27:54 PM
Then I stand corrected. There must be tons of businesses advertizing only in Arabic?
And I suppose it's the norm in many parts of Israel when you don't get a job if you don't speak Arabic, and where you're denied services because you don't speak Arabic?
Yes in fact - many parts of Israel are ethnically divided, because their problems with ethnicity are an order of magnitude or two worse than those of Canada.
Quote
There was a common saying in Montreal, once upon a time, that was "Speak white or leave". Meaning, speak english or go away.
Imagine a Israeli citizen walking in Jerusalem, and asking a question to a merchant in Yiddish. He's then told to speak the language of the Prophet or go away.
And to most places you go in Jerusalem, that would be the same thing.
That was Montreal in the 1950s.
The language laws are sometimes strict, and way too bureaucratic, and I'd love nothing more than some flexibility to it.
But removing them completely is akin to surrender.
Speak
Yiddish these days in Israel, you would be lucky to find anyone under say the age of 60 who understands a word you say. :D
Jews largely abandoned that language (though I believe it is having a bit of a revival) in favour of Hebrew, for a variety of reasons but most particularly because it was associated with Europe.
Quote from: Malthus on September 09, 2009, 08:11:41 AM
Speak Yiddish these days in Israel, you would be lucky to find anyone under say the age of 60 who understands a word you say. :D
Jews largely abandoned that language (though I believe it is having a bit of a revival) in favour of Hebrew, for a variety of reasons but most particularly because it was associated with Europe.
I tought it was the opposite, Hebrew being the old language nobody really spoke anymore. I stand corrected.
Btw, is that true that French is kind of the 3rd language spoken in Israel?
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2009, 06:37:14 AM
Quote from: Grallon on September 08, 2009, 10:08:55 PM
Do you understand the idea of denial I was refering to now?
G.
I guess - however, now that I understand the basis much better, I find I am even less impressed by the legitimacy of the complaint than I was when I was largely ignorant about it's basis.
But I appreciate the explanation.
It should also be pointed out that this explaination is largely incomprehensible to the majority of "anglo" Canadians, who are by no means the monolythic entity imagined by Quebec nationalists. A child of some Hong Kong immigrant isn't going to make heads or tails of the argument that they are an ethno-lingusitic oppressor in denial of some group hundreds of miles away whom they have never interacted with.
Quote from: Malthus on September 09, 2009, 08:11:41 AM
Yes in fact - many parts of Israel are ethnically divided, because their problems with ethnicity are an order of magnitude or two worse than those of Canada.
oh, you don't say? People are blowing themselves up in the street and that's because the problems are an order of magnitude or two worse than those of Canada? I would never have guessed that!
;)
My example of Israel is because it's kinda surrounded by an alien culture, like Quebec, and they too have ways to protect their cultural identity. So I guess if Quebec is a xenophobic or racist state for protecting it's language and culture, so is Israel in its own way. So is any state with any kind of measure aiming to protect its language/culture/identity.
Quote from: viper37 on September 09, 2009, 08:16:07 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 09, 2009, 08:11:41 AM
Speak Yiddish these days in Israel, you would be lucky to find anyone under say the age of 60 who understands a word you say. :D
Jews largely abandoned that language (though I believe it is having a bit of a revival) in favour of Hebrew, for a variety of reasons but most particularly because it was associated with Europe.
I tought it was the opposite, Hebrew being the old language nobody really spoke anymore. I stand corrected.
Btw, is that true that French is kind of the 3rd language spoken in Israel?
Not to my knowledge, no. Most Israelis know at least some English, and Russian is widely spoken; not sure about French.
The history of Hebrew is indeed an interesting one, as it was a dead "liturgical language" much like Latin today (that is, studied for holy writ but not actually spoken) which was deliberately revived for the nationalist project - and out of an abiding dislike for all things European (associated with centuries of oppression and, eventually, genocide). Yiddish was considered if you like a "ghetto language" unsuitable for the modern world.
I have no idea whether there exists any sort of laws mandating Hebrew on signs or the like. I suspect not, though.
Quote from: Malthus on September 09, 2009, 08:17:50 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2009, 06:37:14 AM
Quote from: Grallon on September 08, 2009, 10:08:55 PM
Do you understand the idea of denial I was refering to now?
G.
I guess - however, now that I understand the basis much better, I find I am even less impressed by the legitimacy of the complaint than I was when I was largely ignorant about it's basis.
But I appreciate the explanation.
It should also be pointed out that this explaination is largely incomprehensible to the majority of "anglo" Canadians, who are by no means the monolythic entity imagined by Quebec nationalists. A child of some Hong Kong immigrant isn't going to make heads or tails of the argument that they are an ethno-lingusitic oppressor in denial of some group hundreds of miles away whom they have never interacted with.
I am still wrapping my head around the idea that this opression is almost compeltely a figment of pride and some kind of bizarre emotional angst over the fact that the French lost a war a few hundred years ago.
How can any Europeans in America cling to the idea that their "culture" has some kind of historical legitmacy over some other culture based on the idea that they were there first? Doesn't that raise some rather pointed responses from the people who really WERE there first? I thought the comment about them being insulted by being treated the same as "first nations" rather interesting, since it betrays their own prejudice towards them - after all, you can only be insulted by being compared to them if in fact they are somehow less valuable.
Anyway, the entire thing just looks ludicrous from here. Perhaps it would not if I were closer to it. But being pissed off because ATC is not in French? Seriously?
Quote from: viper37 on September 09, 2009, 08:25:50 AM
My example of Israel is because it's kinda surrounded by an alien culture, like Quebec,
Other than the language, what is so alien about Canadian culture?
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2009, 08:29:21 AM
Perhaps it would not if I were closer to it.
Um....don't you live pretty close to Quebec?
Quote from: Malthus on September 09, 2009, 08:28:09 AM
Not to my knowledge, no. Most Israelis know at least some English, and Russian is widely spoken; not sure about French.
Knew about english and russian is some places, but I heard it about French and was always skeptical.
Maybe it was so once upon a time and it disapeared with the new generation, just like it happens in many other country.
Quote
The history of Hebrew is indeed an interesting one, as it was a dead "liturgical language" much like Latin today (that is, studied for holy writ but not actually spoken) which was deliberately revived for the nationalist project - and out of an abiding dislike for all things European (associated with centuries of oppression and, eventually, genocide). Yiddish was considered if you like a "ghetto language" unsuitable for the modern world.
interesting :) Thanks.
Quote
I have no idea whether there exists any sort of laws mandating Hebrew on signs or the like. I suspect not, though.
Where Siege when we need him?
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2009, 08:30:50 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2009, 08:29:21 AM
Perhaps it would not if I were closer to it.
Um....don't you live pretty close to Quebec?
Not culturally!
Not all that close - I don't have any kind of real contact with anyone from Quebec outside of Languish. The entire thing is rather amusing, really. Rebel without a cause kind of thing.
I think I will go play a game of Wilderness War.
Quote from: viper37 on September 09, 2009, 08:25:50 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 09, 2009, 08:11:41 AM
Yes in fact - many parts of Israel are ethnically divided, because their problems with ethnicity are an order of magnitude or two worse than those of Canada.
oh, you don't say? People are blowing themselves up in the street and that's because the problems are an order of magnitude or two worse than those of Canada? I would never have guessed that!
;)
My example of Israel is because it's kinda surrounded by an alien culture, like Quebec, and they too have ways to protect their cultural identity. So I guess if Quebec is a xenophobic or racist state for protecting it's language and culture, so is Israel in its own way.
Their reactions have I think been quite different in the realm of language.
Both Jews and Quebequois are if you like majorities in their own lands with a substantial minority; surrounded by a "majority" lingusitically and ethnically similar to that minority.
As far as I know however, Israel has not adopted "language laws" preventing unilingual Arabic signs, and officially has two official languages - Hebrew and Arabic.
This, despite (or prehaps
because of) the fact that Arabs and Jews are much more antagonistic than Francophones and Anglophones.
Part of that is I suppose that Israelis do not share the Francophone fear of assimilation. More like
assassination. ;) Israelis have no need of laws to protect their distinct identity, because that isn't under threat: no (or very few) Israelis are
attracted to Arabic culture, or fear they are being left out of important cultural or scientific stuff if they don't speak Arabic. For that, they learn English or other European languages.
I wonder how much of my bemusement at the worry people show about protecting their "culture" is simply because I am part of the dominant global culture, and hence do not share their sense of threat.
I simply cannot imagine why anyone would care about such things. What difference does it make if your native language is dieing out? Globalization makes that inevitable anyway. The purpose of language is communication - and that is facilitated by a common language, not by a bunch of people clinging to some particular language. I am guessing that French they hold so dear is some combination of other languages anyway.
A bubble of French speaker in a sea of English? What *value* does it hold that you all speak French anyway - other than the emotional (and frankly immature) feeling of "specialness" it has to feel that you are somehow different?
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2009, 08:29:21 AM
How can any Europeans in America cling to the idea that their "culture" has some kind of historical legitmacy over some other culture based on the idea that they were there first? Doesn't that raise some rather pointed responses from the people who really WERE there first? I thought the comment about them being insulted by being treated the same as "first nations" rather interesting, since it betrays their own prejudice towards them - after all, you can only be insulted by being compared to them if in fact they are somehow less valuable.
Oh, really?
Then why all the fuss over Obama's religion during the campaign, that fear that he may be a Muslim and not a Christian?
Why all the fuss over religion, mainly Christianity, in your country?
The reason is mainly a fear of some people of losing their identity as what they perceive to be Americans.
In other places, where Spanish is really invasive, you got this kind of measures:
In 1986, California voters added a new constitutional clause, by referendum, stating that English is the official language of the State of California,And searching through the net, I found various studies saying&repeating that "spanish is not a threat to the english language", and various stats about the degree of assimilation of the american spanish speaking community. That sounds to me like some people are concerned about losing their identity. As long as another language/culture is not seen as a threat, there's no problem. In the past, French was seen as a threat in Lousiana and other states in the norht due to massive immigration, so it was forbidden as a language. Indian languages where seen as a cultural threat, so they were forbidden in schools in the hope of definately assimilating the kids.
Quote
Anyway, the entire thing just looks ludicrous from here. Perhaps it would not if I were closer to it.
You're in upper New York State, aren't you? That's pretty close to Quebec :P
Quote from: Malthus on September 09, 2009, 08:37:38 AM
As far as I know however, Israel has not adopted "language laws" preventing unilingual Arabic signs, and officially has two official languages - Hebrew and Arabic.
This, despite (or prehaps because of) the fact that Arabs and Jews are much more antagonistic than Francophones and Anglophones.
I knew you were gonna bring that up.
So, tell me. Why are there refugee camps on the borders of Israel? Why not let all these Arab citizens come back into Israel proper and grant them the exact same rights as current Israeli-Arab citizens? Official bilinguism in a country composed 50-50 of Arabs & Jews might be something else entirely, especially if one group is expanding faster than the other.
Wouldn't there be some fear - as you once said yourself - of losing "Israel's Jewish identity" ?
What's in a cultural identity after all...
Quote from: viper37 on September 09, 2009, 09:01:20 AM
Why not let all these Arab citizens come back into Israel proper and grant them the exact same rights as current Israeli-Arab citizens?
Because they are not and have never been Israeli citizens?
Quote from: viper37 on September 09, 2009, 08:57:58 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2009, 08:29:21 AM
How can any Europeans in America cling to the idea that their "culture" has some kind of historical legitmacy over some other culture based on the idea that they were there first? Doesn't that raise some rather pointed responses from the people who really WERE there first? I thought the comment about them being insulted by being treated the same as "first nations" rather interesting, since it betrays their own prejudice towards them - after all, you can only be insulted by being compared to them if in fact they are somehow less valuable.
Oh, really?
Then why all the fuss over Obama's religion during the campaign, that fear that he may be a Muslim and not a Christian?
Because Americans are not immune to this same silliness, of course.
Quote
Why all the fuss over religion, mainly Christianity, in your country?
Because Christianity is a higly evangelical religion focused on a "us vs them" dynamic that demands that they convert the non-believers into believers. I am not sure it has much to do with cultural identity, although to be fair, it isn't an apt comparison since Christianity is so dominant that there isn't any real threat.
Quote
The reason is mainly a fear of some people of losing their identity as what they perceive to be Americans.
No, not really - and to the extent that it is accurate, I think it is silly here as well.
Quote
In other places, where Spanish is really invasive, you got this kind of measures:
In 1986, California voters added a new constitutional clause, by referendum, stating that English is the official language of the State of California,
Yeah, pretty stupid.
Quote
And searching through the net, I found various studies saying&repeating that "spanish is not a threat to the english language", and various stats about the degree of assimilation of the american spanish speaking community. That sounds to me like some people are concerned about losing their identity. As long as another language/culture is not seen as a threat, there's no problem. In the past, French was seen as a threat in Lousiana and other states in the norht due to massive immigration, so it was forbidden as a language. Indian languages where seen as a cultural threat, so they were forbidden in schools in the hope of definately assimilating the kids.
Yep, all pretty irrational responses to a completely normal process.
Quote
Quote
Anyway, the entire thing just looks ludicrous from here. Perhaps it would not if I were closer to it.
You're in upper New York State, aren't you? That's pretty close to Quebec :P
I guess. Not close enough though - I get a lot more exposure to the debate here than I do in RL - in fact, I get zero exposure to it in real life - I've heard no more about the onerous oppression of air traffic controllers in Quebec here in Rochester than I did in Tucson.
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2009, 09:04:09 AM
Because they are not and have never been Israeli citizens?
They were there before being expelled, forced to leave or simply decided to flee the war themselves.
Of course they were not citizen of Israels before, there was no Israel prior to them vacating the area willingly or not. Only once they were gone did the territory became Israel.
If we were to adopt the same reasoning, the language laws aimed at preventing assimilation from new immigrants are of no consequences since they don't target Canadian (Quebecois) citizens, only foreigners.
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2009, 08:35:22 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2009, 08:30:50 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2009, 08:29:21 AM
Perhaps it would not if I were closer to it.
Um....don't you live pretty close to Quebec?
Not culturally!
Not all that close - I don't have any kind of real contact with anyone from Quebec outside of Languish. The entire thing is rather amusing, really. Rebel without a cause kind of thing.
I think I will go play a game of Wilderness War.
Closer then you think. Quebec isn't much different from New England.
Quote from: viper37 on September 09, 2009, 09:08:20 AM
They were there before being expelled, forced to leave or simply decided to flee the war themselves.
Um...no they weren't.
Yeah pity about that war. Maybe every bordering Arab state shouldn't have attacked and then left the Palestinians out to dry for decades?
I love how it is always the fucking Israelis fault for defending themselves and not being all lovey lovey with everybody sworn to destroy them. The Palestinians are a hostile force why should they embrace their enemies, should that be the job of the Palestinians friends? Oh wait there is not such a thing.
QuoteIf we were to adopt the same reasoning, the language laws aimed at preventing assimilation from new immigrants are of no consequences since they don't target Canadian (Quebecois) citizens, only foreigners
Yes because 50+ years of constant war is exactly the fucking same thing as Quebec you asshole.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 09, 2009, 09:11:01 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2009, 08:35:22 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2009, 08:30:50 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2009, 08:29:21 AM
Perhaps it would not if I were closer to it.
Um....don't you live pretty close to Quebec?
Not culturally!
Not all that close - I don't have any kind of real contact with anyone from Quebec outside of Languish. The entire thing is rather amusing, really. Rebel without a cause kind of thing.
I think I will go play a game of Wilderness War.
Closer then you think. Quebec isn't much different from New England.
Which is why I don't understand this terror of being assimilated by a culture that is pretty much identical to their own, since apparently the net effect will be that your pilots will have to speak French when landing their planes.
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2009, 08:49:19 AM
A bubble of French speaker in a sea of English? What *value* does it hold that you all speak French anyway - other than the emotional (and frankly immature) feeling of "specialness" it has to feel that you are somehow different?
I don't see simply speaking french being all that valuable. It's really more about how speaking french has become the #1 beacon of our culture. 40 years of political will did that. Altho one could quite argue that it's the major pylon that unites us all (Oex & Viper agree!).
I argue quite often then being Québécois is much more then just speaking French.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 09, 2009, 09:16:52 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2009, 08:49:19 AM
A bubble of French speaker in a sea of English? What *value* does it hold that you all speak French anyway - other than the emotional (and frankly immature) feeling of "specialness" it has to feel that you are somehow different?
I don't see simply speaking french being all that valuable. It's really more about how speaking french has become the #1 beacon of our culture. 40 years of political will did that. Altho one could quite argue that it's the major pylon that unites us all (Oex & Viper agree!).
I argue quite often then being Québécois is much more then just speaking French.
QuoteCloser then you think. Quebec isn't much different from New England.
Unity for its own sake is rather silly, since it implies some external contest. Why create a conflict where one does not exist, just for the sake of being able to say you are different, when in fact you really aren't?
How does this effect anyone's life? It seems like the effects are almost completely negative - at least in any objective sense.
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2009, 09:16:37 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 09, 2009, 09:11:01 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2009, 08:35:22 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2009, 08:30:50 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2009, 08:29:21 AM
Perhaps it would not if I were closer to it.
Um....don't you live pretty close to Quebec?
Not culturally!
Not all that close - I don't have any kind of real contact with anyone from Quebec outside of Languish. The entire thing is rather amusing, really. Rebel without a cause kind of thing.
I think I will go play a game of Wilderness War.
Closer then you think. Quebec isn't much different from New England.
Which is why I don't understand this terror of being assimilated by a culture that is pretty much identical to their own, since apparently the net effect will be that your pilots will have to speak French when landing their planes.
The problem isn't you (Americans). It's the rest of Canada.
They don't have too but they were expressly forbidden from Speaking french.
Someone needs to watch the doc I linked & explain it better then I can.
Quote from: Malthus on September 09, 2009, 08:17:50 AM
It should also be pointed out that this explaination is largely incomprehensible to the majority of "anglo" Canadians, who are by no means the monolythic entity imagined by Quebec nationalists. A child of some Hong Kong immigrant isn't going to make heads or tails of the argument that they are an ethno-lingusitic oppressor in denial of some group hundreds of miles away whom they have never interacted with.
This is what I meant by using suprious justifications to dismiss the validity, in this case, of our language laws. As if immigrants' appreciation of a long standing argument between the two main ethnic groups in this country was relevant. They're only being used as props in the debate. Tcha! <_<
G.
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2009, 09:04:30 AM
Yep, all pretty irrational responses to a completely normal process.
Yes, they were.
In a way, so are Quebec language laws.
The man who had them voted said it was a "necessary disgrace". And I agree. I don't like having such laws, but they are necessary, otherwise we simply cease to exist.
Had French in Canada, and in the US, always received equal status to english or simply having not been so heavily discriminated against in the past, the situation today might be pretty different. But it is not. The past is imperfect, and so is the future.
QuoteI guess. Not close enough though - I get a lot more exposure to the debate here than I do in RL - in fact, I get zero exposure to it in real life - I've heard no more about the onerous oppression of air traffic controllers in Quebec here in Rochester than I did in Tucson.
Hey, I suppose Quebec&Canadian politics don't get much coverage in your local news :D
Just the same here about New York politics. We hear from time to time about New York city mayor, some special coverage on Plattsburgh airport (http://www.flyplattsburgh.com/francais/), but aside that, not much we hear about our friendly neighbours, be it Vermont, Maine or New York State. I've really no idea who is governor of those states, so I can't really blame Americans for not knowing what's going on in our backyard.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 09, 2009, 09:21:10 AM
The problem isn't you (Americans). It's the rest of Canada.
I realize that - but the "rest of Canada" is pretty much culturally identical to most of New England as well.
Quote
They don't have too but they were expressly forbidden from Speaking french.
Where? That would be a problem, and should be addressed - but I don't see the need for laws demanding that people ONLY speak French to do that, or silly things like demanding that French be "predominant" on signs and such.
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2009, 08:49:19 AM
I wonder how much of my bemusement at the worry people show about protecting their "culture" is simply because I am part of the dominant global culture, and hence do not share their sense of threat.
I simply cannot imagine why anyone would care about such things. What difference does it make if your native language is dieing out? Globalization makes that inevitable anyway. The purpose of language is communication - and that is facilitated by a common language, not by a bunch of people clinging to some particular language. I am guessing that French they hold so dear is some combination of other languages anyway.
A bubble of French speaker in a sea of English? What *value* does it hold that you all speak French anyway - other than the emotional (and frankly immature) feeling of "specialness" it has to feel that you are somehow different?
I take exception to your suggestion we should simply just suicide now because our culture may or may not die out in some distant future. How incredibly arrogant and condescending. <_<
On the other hand, it should be amusing to watch your reactions when mandarin's usage rises alongside China's importance.
But as you said, you cannot grasp the situation since you belong to another culture.
G.
Quote from: viper37 on September 09, 2009, 09:01:20 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 09, 2009, 08:37:38 AM
As far as I know however, Israel has not adopted "language laws" preventing unilingual Arabic signs, and officially has two official languages - Hebrew and Arabic.
This, despite (or prehaps because of) the fact that Arabs and Jews are much more antagonistic than Francophones and Anglophones.
I knew you were gonna bring that up.
So, tell me. Why are there refugee camps on the borders of Israel? Why not let all these Arab citizens come back into Israel proper and grant them the exact same rights as current Israeli-Arab citizens? Official bilinguism in a country composed 50-50 of Arabs & Jews might be something else entirely, especially if one group is expanding faster than the other.
Wouldn't there be some fear - as you once said yourself - of losing "Israel's Jewish identity" ?
What's in a cultural identity after all...
As I said, Israelis fear for their physical safety, not their culture. They don't let Palestinian refugees into the country because they fear being exterminated, not because they are afraid that they, the Israelis, will end up speaking Arabic.
Quote from: viper37 on September 09, 2009, 09:27:22 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2009, 09:04:30 AM
Yep, all pretty irrational responses to a completely normal process.
Yes, they were.
In a way, so are Quebec language laws.
The man who had them voted said it was a "necessary disgrace". And I agree. I don't like having such laws, but they are necessary, otherwise we simply cease to exist.
No you don't. You will exist regardless of which language you speak.
I don't buy the idea at all that your "existence" is dependent on passing laws intending to make sure people speak some particular language.
Quote from: Malthus on September 09, 2009, 09:32:21 AM
Quote from: viper37 on September 09, 2009, 09:01:20 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 09, 2009, 08:37:38 AM
As far as I know however, Israel has not adopted "language laws" preventing unilingual Arabic signs, and officially has two official languages - Hebrew and Arabic.
This, despite (or prehaps because of) the fact that Arabs and Jews are much more antagonistic than Francophones and Anglophones.
I knew you were gonna bring that up.
So, tell me. Why are there refugee camps on the borders of Israel? Why not let all these Arab citizens come back into Israel proper and grant them the exact same rights as current Israeli-Arab citizens? Official bilinguism in a country composed 50-50 of Arabs & Jews might be something else entirely, especially if one group is expanding faster than the other.
Wouldn't there be some fear - as you once said yourself - of losing "Israel's Jewish identity" ?
What's in a cultural identity after all...
As I said, Israelis fear for their physical safety, not their culture. They don't let Palestinian refugees into the country because they fear being exterminated, not because they are afraid that they, the Israelis, will end up speaking Arabic.
Six of one and a half dozen of the other.
Is there really a difference between physical and cultural extermination, other than the obvious petty murder of a generation or two? In a few hundred years, no one will be able to tell the difference between the two anyway.
Quote from: Malthus on September 09, 2009, 09:32:21 AM
As I said, Israelis fear for their physical safety, not their culture. They don't let Palestinian refugees into the country because they fear being exterminated, not because they are afraid that they, the Israelis, will end up speaking Arabic.
Oh no it is exactly the same thing. I hear the Anglo-Canadians have brigades of militias who chant 'death to Quebec'.
Quote from: Grallon on September 09, 2009, 09:21:37 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 09, 2009, 08:17:50 AM
It should also be pointed out that this explaination is largely incomprehensible to the majority of "anglo" Canadians, who are by no means the monolythic entity imagined by Quebec nationalists. A child of some Hong Kong immigrant isn't going to make heads or tails of the argument that they are an ethno-lingusitic oppressor in denial of some group hundreds of miles away whom they have never interacted with.
This is what I meant by using suprious justifications to dismiss the validity, in this case, of our language laws. As if immigrants' appreciation of a long standing argument between the two main ethnic groups in this country was relevant. They're only being used as props in the debate. Tcha! <_<
G.
Of course the views of the descendents of immigrants are relevant, they are on their way to being a majority of our citizens. How are their views not relevant?
Now I have a mental image of you hunting down the last surviving member of the Orange Order in his nursing home - and joining him. :D
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2009, 09:28:08 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 09, 2009, 09:21:10 AM
The problem isn't you (Americans). It's the rest of Canada.
I realize that - but the "rest of Canada" is pretty much culturally identical to most of New England as well.
Quote
They don't have too but they were expressly forbidden from Speaking french.
Where? That would be a problem, and should be addressed - but I don't see the need for laws demanding that people ONLY speak French to do that, or silly things like demanding that French be "predominant" on signs and such.
The ATCs & Pilots, in Quebec until 1975. The law changed to allow speaking French. The Anglos still speak english. Anglophone pilots still communicate in English. But in the even that there's a french one.
Yes the sign laws are stupid but they were necassary.
Quote from: Grallon on September 09, 2009, 09:32:14 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2009, 08:49:19 AM
I wonder how much of my bemusement at the worry people show about protecting their "culture" is simply because I am part of the dominant global culture, and hence do not share their sense of threat.
I simply cannot imagine why anyone would care about such things. What difference does it make if your native language is dieing out? Globalization makes that inevitable anyway. The purpose of language is communication - and that is facilitated by a common language, not by a bunch of people clinging to some particular language. I am guessing that French they hold so dear is some combination of other languages anyway.
A bubble of French speaker in a sea of English? What *value* does it hold that you all speak French anyway - other than the emotional (and frankly immature) feeling of "specialness" it has to feel that you are somehow different?
I take exception to your suggestion we should simply just suicide now because our culture may or may not die out in some distant future. How incredibly arrogant and condescending. <_<
On the other hand, it should be amusing to watch your reactions when mandarin's usage rises alongside China's importance.
But as you said, you cannot grasp the situation since you belong to another culture.
G.
Suicide?
Are you suggesting that you will die if you don't speak French and read signs where the French is larger than the English?
And if Mandarin becomes the dominant language in the US, why in the world would I care? Why would anyone care?
Lots of "stupid but necessary" going on I guess. Well, we agree on 50% of it anyway.
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2009, 09:47:43 AM
Quote from: Grallon on September 09, 2009, 09:32:14 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2009, 08:49:19 AM
I wonder how much of my bemusement at the worry people show about protecting their "culture" is simply because I am part of the dominant global culture, and hence do not share their sense of threat.
I simply cannot imagine why anyone would care about such things. What difference does it make if your native language is dieing out? Globalization makes that inevitable anyway. The purpose of language is communication - and that is facilitated by a common language, not by a bunch of people clinging to some particular language. I am guessing that French they hold so dear is some combination of other languages anyway.
A bubble of French speaker in a sea of English? What *value* does it hold that you all speak French anyway - other than the emotional (and frankly immature) feeling of "specialness" it has to feel that you are somehow different?
I take exception to your suggestion we should simply just suicide now because our culture may or may not die out in some distant future. How incredibly arrogant and condescending. <_<
On the other hand, it should be amusing to watch your reactions when mandarin's usage rises alongside China's importance.
But as you said, you cannot grasp the situation since you belong to another culture.
G.
Suicide?
Are you suggesting that you will die if you don't speak French and read signs where the French is larger than the English?
And if Mandarin becomes the dominant language in the US, why in the world would I care? Why would anyone care?
Quote isn't trimmed because the quote system of this board is retarded.
Don't you fear that if you start speaking Mandarin, you'll lose your identity has an American and as a New Yorker? You'll just be one more drone in the Communist Chinese Machine.
Someone will care, Seedy will care. Americans would take up arms.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 09, 2009, 09:53:33 AM
Quote isn't trimmed because the quote system of this board is retarded.
Don't you fear that if you start speaking Mandarin, you'll lose your identity has an American and as a New Yorker? You'll just be one more drone in the Communist Chinese Machine.
Someone will care, Seedy will care. Americans would take up arms.
Our identity as Americans is ideological not cultural so I do not think I would be worried.
But then I am surrounded by Spanish and Spanish is entirely consistent with a Texas identity.
I don't see Mandarin becoming the lingua franca without a major shift in Chinese culture. Even if they had a per capita gdp like those of the West, they'd still conduct business with barbarians in the barbarian tongue.
My "identity" is not linked to what language I speak, nor do I consider anyone who speaks a language other than my own to be inferior or even fundamentally different from myself.
Language is a tool to allow communication. If someone comes along and replaces my hammer with a screwdriver, I did not suddenly change who I was.
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2009, 10:14:32 AM
My "identity" is not linked to what language I speak, nor do I consider anyone who speaks a language other than my own to be inferior or even fundamentally different from myself.
Language is a tool to allow communication. If someone comes along and replaces my hammer with a screwdriver, I did not suddenly change who I was.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapir-Whorf
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2009, 10:14:32 AM
My "identity" is not linked to what language I speak, nor do I consider anyone who speaks a language other than my own to be inferior or even fundamentally different from myself.
Language is a tool to allow communication. If someone comes along and replaces my hammer with a screwdriver, I did not suddenly change who I was.
You're wrong, and a little stupid.
Quote from: viper37 on September 08, 2009, 08:27:54 PM
Interacting with foreigners in a foreign language is one thing. Having to interact with people living here who are simply too lazy to bother learning the language of the majority, that I would never accept.
This is an issue in the US, but it arises in a different way -- there are entrenched groups of minorities who don't speak English and while interaction may not be "necessary" it is common. Some Americans get very worked up about this and even proposed legislation but it rarely goes anywhere because the notion of legislating about language usage goes against the ideological grain.
The situation is different in Quebec it seems to me because of historical grievances about past quasi-colonial rule. I can understand that, but the fact is times change, and one either lives in the past or the present. If you don't want to interact with "lazy" people who live in Montreal and don't speak French, don't interact with them. But it is hard for an outsider to understand the existential angst that such interaction seems to give rise to. I am not saying it isn't a legitimate reaction, just that it seems puzzling to the outside world.
QuoteImagine a Israeli citizen walking in Jerusalem, and asking a question to a merchant in Yiddish. He's then told to speak the language of the Prophet or go away.
You obviously are not all that familiar with Arab merchants. They will happily engage in you in any language that has a word for "money" in it.
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2009, 08:49:19 AM
I wonder how much of my bemusement at the worry people show about protecting their "culture" is simply because I am part of the dominant global culture, and hence do not share their sense of threat.
I simply cannot imagine why anyone would care about such things. What difference does it make if your native language is dieing out? Globalization makes that inevitable anyway. The purpose of language is communication - and that is facilitated by a common language, not by a bunch of people clinging to some particular language. I am guessing that French they hold so dear is some combination of other languages anyway.
A bubble of French speaker in a sea of English? What *value* does it hold that you all speak French anyway - other than the emotional (and frankly immature) feeling of "specialness" it has to feel that you are somehow different?
If you're not trolling and this is really what you feel, you should just leave the thread already.
It's really rich that it just happens to be your mother tongue threatening and trying to extinguish ours for about 300 years now. Of course you see absolutely no problem with french disappearing.
I'll tell you what. Since you're all about language as communication tool only, why don't you learn french instead of me using english. I've given you a solid 8 years of insults and condescension in Shakespear's tongue.
Your turn!
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2009, 10:14:32 AM
My "identity" is not linked to what language I speak, nor do I consider anyone who speaks a language other than my own to be inferior or even fundamentally different from myself.
Language is a tool to allow communication. If someone comes along and replaces my hammer with a screwdriver, I did not suddenly change who I was.
I suppose it is different if one's culture (and thus identity) iis largely being whittled down to what language one speaks. In such a case, I suppose I could see fighting for one's language...
Quote from: viper37 on September 09, 2009, 08:16:07 AM
Btw, is that true that French is kind of the 3rd language spoken in Israel?
No - English is in part because the State of Israel inherited the Mandatory legal structure including English language legislation and in part because of the practicalities of knowing English for business , educational and diplomatic purposes. What is true is that from 1948 to 1967, France was probably Israel's closest ally. Sadly that has long ceased to be so.
Quote from: viper37 on September 09, 2009, 08:57:58 AM
In other places, where Spanish is really invasive, you got this kind of measures:
In 1986, California voters added a new constitutional clause, by referendum, stating that English is the official language of the State of California,
And searching through the net, I found various studies saying&repeating that "spanish is not a threat to the english language", and various stats about the degree of assimilation of the american spanish speaking community. That sounds to me like some people are concerned about losing their identity.
Exactly, but this particular phenomenon in the United States is associated with political tendencies that I personally would view with suspicion - namely xenophobic, nationalist (in the malign sense), in some extreme cases even racism. So in the context of the US, while "defense of language" identity politics exists, it is associated with a broader ideology that some (including myself) find rather distateful.
I understand intellectually that the politics of language in Canada stem from somewhat different roots, but of course we tend to see things from the perceptual prism of our own environments. So for those Americans that look askance at the English-firster types, the immediate reaction to seeing this kind of language politics is to view it as some kind of atavistic ethno-jingoism.
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2009, 10:14:32 AM
My "identity" is not linked to what language I speak, nor do I consider anyone who speaks a language other than my own to be inferior or even fundamentally different from myself.
Language is a tool to allow communication. If someone comes along and replaces my hammer with a screwdriver, I did not suddenly change who I was.
I am not sure to what extent you are simply being provocative to see where the boundaries of this discussion are located or whether you really believe this.
If you really believe this you might ask yourself why there is a movement in the US to enshrine English as the official language of the US to protect it from Spanish becoming more dominant.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 09, 2009, 10:44:54 AM
Exactly, but this particular phenomenon in the United States is associated with political tendencies that I personally would view with suspicion - namely xenophobic, nationalist (in the malign sense), in some extreme cases even racism. So in the context of the US, while "defense of language" identity politics exists, it is associated with a broader ideology that some (including myself) find rather distateful.
I understand intellectually that the politics of language in Canada stem from somewhat different roots, but of course we tend to see things from the perceptual prism of our own environments. So for those Americans that look askance at the English-firster types, the immediate reaction to seeing this kind of language politics is to view it as some kind of atavistic ethno-jingoism.
I see the question I posed to Berk has already been asked and you have answered it this way.
I wonder what your view would be if English was not the dominant language and was at risk of dying out. Would you still consider the move to protect English as atavistic ethno-jingoism?
Isnt the reason why the English first movement in the US is repulsive to you coloured by the fact that English is in fact the dominant language.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 09, 2009, 10:44:54 AM
Exactly, but this particular phenomenon in the United States is associated with political tendencies that I personally would view with suspicion - namely xenophobic, nationalist (in the malign sense), in some extreme cases even racism. So in the context of the US, while "defense of language" identity politics exists, it is associated with a broader ideology that some (including myself) find rather distateful.
I understand intellectually that the politics of language in Canada stem from somewhat different roots, but of course we tend to see things from the perceptual prism of our own environments. So for those Americans that look askance at the English-firster types, the immediate reaction to seeing this kind of language politics is to view it as some kind of atavistic ethno-jingoism.
Heh, from a Jewish point of view, the notion of a majority culture under threat by a minority within that culture who is alleged to be clannish, good at business, exerting too much influence, and contemptuous of the majority isn't exactly unfamiliar, either. ;)
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 09, 2009, 10:46:15 AM
If you really believe this you might ask yourself why there is a movement in the US to enshrine English as the official language of the US to protect it from Spanish becoming more dominant.
For the same reason Lou Dobbs has a job: there just happen to be enough insecure, immigrant-bashing paranoids in our country to give this movement some life. But it is hardly something I would aspire to share.
I guess I come at this from a kind of cultural arrogance. I just assume American culture and beliefs are superior and all religions, ethnic traditions, and languages will eventually be absorbed into the whole. Therefore I see the Latinos simply becoming like Tim, Lusti, Katmai, and Jaron and therefore I am apathetic to whatever "threat" Spanish might have to my culture. I figure the extent of it will be we eventually have more Spanish words and some cultural practices that we borrow from them and keep on going as we always have.
If, on the other hand, I felt there was a real danger of the United States becoming a Latin American country I would probably feel differently.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 09, 2009, 10:53:15 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 09, 2009, 10:46:15 AM
If you really believe this you might ask yourself why there is a movement in the US to enshrine English as the official language of the US to protect it from Spanish becoming more dominant.
For the same reason Lou Dobbs has a job: there just happen to be enough insecure, immigrant-bashing paranoids in our country to give this movement some life. But it is hardly something I would aspire to share.
Quite right. But that begs the question why Lou Dobbs has a job. Protection of language obviously hits a nerve in the American psyche at some level and so that is why I called into question Berkuts declaration that it does not matter to him.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 09, 2009, 10:56:28 AM
Quite right. But that begs the question why Lou Dobbs has a job. Protection of language obviously hits a nerve in the American psyche at some level and so that is why I called into question Berkuts declaration that it does not matter to him.
This particular nerve has been around forever. There was a huge movement to force the German immigrants to speak English back in the day and the nativists have always fretted about whoever the immigrants du jour were.
The most embarrasing chapter has to be the Chinese on the West Coast in the 19th century.
Berkut is just being Berkut. He doesn't really believe what he writes, he hasn't thought it through either.
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2009, 10:54:30 AM
If, on the other hand, I felt there was a real danger of the United States becoming a Latin American country I would probably feel differently.
If you can put yourself fully into that mindset I think you can better understand the thinking of what motivates, at least in part, the Quebec language laws.
To everyone else, I dont actually see what the big deal is. The provinces have the authority to legislate in this area. If they choose to do so that is their choice. As is apparrent from the discussion here the perspective of Quebec is very different from the rest of us - that underlies the logic of giving the power in these areas to the Provinces.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 09, 2009, 10:50:09 AM
I wonder what your view would be if English was not the dominant language and was at risk of dying out. Would you still consider the move to protect English as atavistic ethno-jingoism?
It's a fair question and one that I it is very hard to answer honestly without actually having to experience it. But if hypothetically, English was dying out, than as a person of some ambition I would make efforts to learn whatever language I needed to learn to stay competitive. And I think I would not get that worked up about the fate of English as a language.
I don't really have any particular attachment to English other than I can speak and write it well and it would be damned inconvenient at my age to learn something completely new. English was my father's third language (his native tongue was French amusingly enough).
Of course this is all hypothetical because neither English NOR French is any danger of dying out.
QuoteIsnt the reason why the English first movement in the US is repulsive to you coloured by the fact that English is in fact the dominant language.
It's repulsive to me b/c of my perceptions of certain of the motivations behind it.
[/quote]
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 09, 2009, 10:59:57 AM
If you can put yourself fully into that mindset I think you can better understand the thinking of what motivates, at least in part, the Quebec language laws.
So here's my question. If people in Quebec so dearly want to hold onto French, what's preventing (/threatening) them? I mean I can understand certain laws for the government (like having a law that says all government signs in Quebec must be in both languages and government employees should speak both) as if the government isn't using French, it'll be hard to keep...but I'm not sure why you'd need laws beyond that.
Quote from: garbon on September 09, 2009, 11:15:02 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 09, 2009, 10:59:57 AM
If you can put yourself fully into that mindset I think you can better understand the thinking of what motivates, at least in part, the Quebec language laws.
So here's my question. If people in Quebec so dearly want to hold onto French, what's preventing (/threatening) them? I mean I can understand certain laws for the government (like having a law that says all government signs in Quebec must be in both languages and government employees should speak both) as if the government isn't using French, it'll be hard to keep...but I'm not sure why you'd need laws beyond that.
Nothing seems to preventing them, but the enormous dominance of english most assuredly seems to be threatening them, and will continue to do so given the size of the Anglo-cultures nearby.
And that's something that's best not underestimated as language often goes to the very core of people's sense of culture. Not only across nations but also amongst people of the same nation.
Quote from: Malthus on September 09, 2009, 10:51:30 AM
Heh, from a Jewish point of view, the notion of a majority culture under threat by a minority within that culture who is alleged to be clannish, good at business, exerting too much influence, and contemptuous of the majority isn't exactly unfamiliar, either. ;)
Not to mention we "rootless cosmopolitans" seem to lack a proper understanding of the mystic ties between Sprache and Volk.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 09, 2009, 10:26:38 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2009, 08:49:19 AM
I wonder how much of my bemusement at the worry people show about protecting their "culture" is simply because I am part of the dominant global culture, and hence do not share their sense of threat.
I simply cannot imagine why anyone would care about such things. What difference does it make if your native language is dieing out? Globalization makes that inevitable anyway. The purpose of language is communication - and that is facilitated by a common language, not by a bunch of people clinging to some particular language. I am guessing that French they hold so dear is some combination of other languages anyway.
A bubble of French speaker in a sea of English? What *value* does it hold that you all speak French anyway - other than the emotional (and frankly immature) feeling of "specialness" it has to feel that you are somehow different?
If you're not trolling and this is really what you feel, you should just leave the thread already.
It's really rich that it just happens to be your mother tongue threatening and trying to extinguish ours for about 300 years now. Of course you see absolutely no problem with french disappearing.
I'll tell you what. Since you're all about language as communication tool only, why don't you learn french instead of me using english. I've given you a solid 8 years of insults and condescension in Shakespear's tongue.
Your turn!
Why would I learn French? I communicate rather nicely with everyone I need to in English - including you. If I decided I wanted to live in France (or Quebec, I guess) then perhaps I would be motivated to learn French, but since it has no real positive impact on me (and is very hard to learn - I suck at foreign languages), why would I go to so much trouble?
The issue is not whether I am willing to learn French or not, it is whether I wrap my sense of self up in something as obviously irrelevant to my value as a human being as what language my parents happened to speak.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 09, 2009, 10:46:15 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2009, 10:14:32 AM
My "identity" is not linked to what language I speak, nor do I consider anyone who speaks a language other than my own to be inferior or even fundamentally different from myself.
Language is a tool to allow communication. If someone comes along and replaces my hammer with a screwdriver, I did not suddenly change who I was.
I am not sure to what extent you are simply being provocative to see where the boundaries of this discussion are located or whether you really believe this.
I really believe this.
Quote
If you really believe this you might ask yourself why there is a movement in the US to enshrine English as the official language of the US to protect it from Spanish becoming more dominant.
I already answered this, and JR just answered it as well, with the exact same answer.
To the extent that these kinds of movements exist in the US, they are rather silly. I am being perfectly consistent then in finding them also silly when they appear elsewhere.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 09, 2009, 10:56:28 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 09, 2009, 10:53:15 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 09, 2009, 10:46:15 AM
If you really believe this you might ask yourself why there is a movement in the US to enshrine English as the official language of the US to protect it from Spanish becoming more dominant.
For the same reason Lou Dobbs has a job: there just happen to be enough insecure, immigrant-bashing paranoids in our country to give this movement some life. But it is hardly something I would aspire to share.
Quite right. But that begs the question why Lou Dobbs has a job. Protection of language obviously hits a nerve in the American psyche at some level and so that is why I called into question Berkuts declaration that it does not matter to him.
So you are assuming that I am lying about what I say because some Americans somewhere are dumbshits?
I mean really - if nothing else, haven't you figured out yet that I don't particularly follow along with the more nationalistic/racist/xenophobic members of American society?
Also notice that in fact we don't have any actual laws that demand that you do not put up Spanish signs. You can place signs in only Spanish all you like - so at the end of the day, apparently the nutbars don't really have that much pull...here.
You have to feel threaten for it to have appeal. Of course anything until then will seem silly.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 09, 2009, 10:59:07 AM
Berkut is just being Berkut. He doesn't really believe what he writes, he hasn't thought it through either.
Well, I will admit to not having completely thought this through - hence my many questions to those for whom this is clearly a very important issue.
I still don't really see any rational reason why it is such an important issue though. It seems a bit silly to me, just like Americans tryiong to keep Spanish people from speaking Spanish, and for largely the same reasons.
All language is an amalgamation of the various cultures that spawn them, including French, English, and Spanish. You cannot "protect" them, and doing so just creates more problems than it solves.
I imagine English as it will be spoken in the US in 300 years will be rather different than it is now - so what? If it is a lot more Spanish-like, then why would I care?
If in fact language was used as a means to deny basic equality to people in Quebec, then I could understand the concern - but when I asked about this perceived oppression, the example I got was almost laughably trivial - air traffic controllers?
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 09, 2009, 12:08:49 PM
You have to feel threaten for it to have appeal. Of course anything until then will seem silly.
Nah, I don't think that is true.
Nobody has ever asked me to sit at the back of a bus, or refused to let me vote because I am black, or even called me a nigger and beat the shit out of me, yet I can understand how all those things are degrading and intolerable, even if I never experienced them myself, and am in fact a member of the ethnic group who was largely responsible for that oppression.
Is being unable to enjoy the vast wilderness of our territory a good example? (Includes being able to simply camp there to Hunt & Fish)
Quote from: garbon on September 09, 2009, 11:15:02 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 09, 2009, 10:59:57 AM
If you can put yourself fully into that mindset I think you can better understand the thinking of what motivates, at least in part, the Quebec language laws.
So here's my question. If people in Quebec so dearly want to hold onto French, what's preventing (/threatening) them? I mean I can understand certain laws for the government (like having a law that says all government signs in Quebec must be in both languages and government employees should speak both) as if the government isn't using French, it'll be hard to keep...but I'm not sure why you'd need laws beyond that.
I am a little out of my depth on that question. It has really only been through the discussions with Oex, GF and others in this forum that I have begun to better understand their position.
I will leave it to them to answer your question.
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2009, 12:07:16 PM
So you are assuming that I am lying
Take a deep breath and re-read your posts.
What I am assuming is that you havent actually thought this through and your responses have been a bit simplistic.
Garbon's question is quite hard to answer & there isn't a consensus on it either. I don't know how to answer it either. Maybe Oex will be.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 09, 2009, 12:18:09 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2009, 12:07:16 PM
So you are assuming that I am lying
Take a deep breath and re-read your posts.
What I am assuming is that you havent actually thought this through and your responses have been a bit simplistic.
OK, fair enough. But your response was to reject my *personal* views on the basis that this kind of thing happens in the US as well. While that is true, it does not address my personal view at all, since my view of it when happens in the US isn't really any different than when it is happening in Quebec, and I would make the same argument to someone here telling us that we really need to protect English from the damn immigrants who come here and refuse to learn the language.
Quote from: garbon on September 09, 2009, 11:15:02 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 09, 2009, 10:59:57 AM
If you can put yourself fully into that mindset I think you can better understand the thinking of what motivates, at least in part, the Quebec language laws.
So here's my question. If people in Quebec so dearly want to hold onto French, what's preventing (/threatening) them? I mean I can understand certain laws for the government (like having a law that says all government signs in Quebec must be in both languages and government employees should speak both) as if the government isn't using French, it'll be hard to keep...but I'm not sure why you'd need laws beyond that.
indeed - it is the insistence that Quebec be strictly uni-lingual that puzzles me. I find the idea that people get upset that government forms in southern California are written in Spanish as well as English rather bizarre, and I find the idea that Quebec thinks that the only way to protect their "culture" is to insist that Quebec is NOT a bilingual area equally odd, especially to the extent of insisting that private companies not be allowed to conduct business in another language, or to advertise in other languages in favor of French, if that is what they desired.
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2009, 12:25:09 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 09, 2009, 11:15:02 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 09, 2009, 10:59:57 AM
If you can put yourself fully into that mindset I think you can better understand the thinking of what motivates, at least in part, the Quebec language laws.
So here's my question. If people in Quebec so dearly want to hold onto French, what's preventing (/threatening) them? I mean I can understand certain laws for the government (like having a law that says all government signs in Quebec must be in both languages and government employees should speak both) as if the government isn't using French, it'll be hard to keep...but I'm not sure why you'd need laws beyond that.
indeed - it is the insistence that Quebec be strictly uni-lingual that puzzles me. I find the idea that people get upset that government forms in southern California are written in Spanish as well as English rather bizarre, and I find the idea that Quebec thinks that the only way to protect their "culture" is to insist that Quebec is NOT a bilingual area equally odd, especially to the extent of insisting that private companies not be allowed to conduct business in another language, or to advertise in other languages in favor of French, if that is what they desired.
because theoretical and practical bilinguality leads to effective monolinguality over time.
I'll again use my own country as an example: when belgium was formed both dutch and french were officially considered equal. The reality however, was that dutch wasn't used in and even shunned by government due to the fact that everyone who was someone in Belgium spoke french. The result: no higher education in Dutch, no courts in Dutch, no constitution in Dutch, no government in Dutch, "et pour les flamans la même chose".
In such situations bilinguality is percieved as equal to de facto monolinguality.
While the political situation in Quebec isn't as dire as the flemish situation even 50 years ago I'm guessing the feeling remains the same. For if Quebec was made totally bilingual why would anyone entering the place bother with the French? Even if they entered to spend the rest of their lives there.
Very different from California cause everyone knows the migrants will eventually assimilate into english.
I'm just taking a guess here though.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on September 09, 2009, 12:48:28 PMWhile the political situation in Quebec isn't as dire as the flemish situation even 50 years ago I'm guessing the feeling remains the same. For if Quebec was made totally bilingual why would anyone entering the place bother with the French? Even if they entered to spend the rest of their lives there.
Oh, so it'd be immigrants who are the ones threatening the status of French in Quebec.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on September 09, 2009, 12:48:28 PMVery different from California cause everyone knows the migrants will eventually assimilate into english.
I don't know, I mean Spanish is pretty strong in my neighborhood. Why we have stores and billboards that only have things posted up in Spanish. :D
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on September 09, 2009, 12:48:28 PM
Very different from California cause everyone knows the migrants will eventually assimilate into english.
Not so sure about that
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on September 09, 2009, 01:07:05 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on September 09, 2009, 12:48:28 PM
Very different from California cause everyone knows the migrants will eventually assimilate into english.
Not so sure about that
I have faith in America's eventually to more or less* assimilate everyone eventually.
Tangentially related:
QuoteMichael Skinner, a law-enforcement officer with the U.S. Forest Service in Colorado, said warning signs of possible drug trafficking include "tortilla packaging, beer cans, Spam, tuna, Tecate beer cans," and campers who play Spanish music. He said the warning includes people speaking Spanish.
http://www.durangoherald.com/sections/News/2009/08/29/Forest_Service_retracts_warning/
*Obviously, St. Patrick's Day, Columbus Day, and Cinco de Mayo celebrations will be retained, along with better food than the American baseline.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on September 09, 2009, 12:48:28 PM
because theoretical and practical bilinguality leads to effective monolinguality over time.
I'll again use my own country as an example: when belgium was formed both dutch and french were officially considered equal. The reality however, was that dutch wasn't used in and even shunned by government due to the fact that everyone who was someone in Belgium spoke french. The result: no higher education in Dutch, no courts in Dutch, no constitution in Dutch, no government in Dutch, "et pour les flamans la même chose".
In such situations bilinguality is percieved as equal to de facto monolinguality.
While the political situation in Quebec isn't as dire as the flemish situation even 50 years ago I'm guessing the feeling remains the same. For if Quebec was made totally bilingual why would anyone entering the place bother with the French? Even if they entered to spend the rest of their lives there.
Very different from California cause everyone knows the migrants will eventually assimilate into english.
I'm just taking a guess here though.
To my mind, the issue is one of how much interference in individual rights is justified in pursuit of "national" or group rights.
If one accepts the thesis that there is some value in seeing the world in a particular way by speaking a particular language (and I do), then it would be a real shame if that language were to die out.
On the other hand, if one accepts that thesis, then it is a real imposition and deprivation of rights by the state for the state to, in effect, choose what language you, as an individual, will speak in.
OTOH, if the matter is merely that language is a handy ethnic shibboleth or badge of identity, then the matter becomes clear: it is an obvious and inexcusable imposition by the
state to require ethnic conformity by the individual, if they do not wish to so conform.
Quote from: garbon on September 09, 2009, 01:01:36 PM
I don't know, I mean Spanish is pretty strong in my neighborhood. Why we have stores and billboards that only have things posted up in Spanish. :D
The German immigrants had entire towns and regions where not a single word of English was seen or heard. They came around eventually.
Quote from: ulmont on September 09, 2009, 01:21:18 PM
*Obviously, St. Patrick's Day, Columbus Day, and Cinco de Mayo celebrations will be retained, along with better food than the American baseline.
Why the hell do people celebrate Cinco de Mayo in this country? People in Mexico do not even care about it. The United States is the only place in the entire hemisphere that celebrates that thing and I don't get it. Why don't we adopt an actual Latin American holiday to celebrate?
And naturally a fort of Mexicans being slaughtered by a bunch of Frenchmen seems like a silly reason to celebrate to me.
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2009, 02:11:13 PM
Why the hell do people celebrate Cinco de Mayo in this country? People in Mexico do not even care about it. The United States is the only place in the entire hemisphere that celebrates that thing and I don't get it. Why don't we adopt an actual Latin American holiday to celebrate?
And naturally a fort of Mexicans being slaughtered by a bunch of Frenchmen seems like a silly reason to celebrate to me.
Do people actually *celebrate* it? I thought it was just an excuse to drink for some.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 09, 2009, 02:16:28 PM
Do people actually *celebrate* it? I thought it was just an excuse to drink for some.
Heck if I know. Nobody I know celebrates it.
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2009, 02:11:13 PM
Quote from: ulmont on September 09, 2009, 01:21:18 PM
*Obviously, St. Patrick's Day, Columbus Day, and Cinco de Mayo celebrations will be retained, along with better food than the American baseline.
Why the hell do people celebrate Cinco de Mayo in this country?
I thought it was because it was pushed by the beer companies. :mellow:
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2009, 02:11:13 PM
Why the hell do people celebrate Cinco de Mayo in this country?
Any excuse to get wasted on margaritas and tequila shots?
Quote from: Barrister on September 09, 2009, 02:27:59 PM
I thought it was because it was pushed by the beer companies. :mellow:
Why would they push that one in particular? There are not any actual Mexican national holidays to get drunk on?
I mean what if they had convinced all Canadians Flag Day was the most important American Holiday and you all got drunk? Why would they do it then instead of July 4th?
Quote from: ulmont on September 09, 2009, 02:29:13 PM
Any excuse to get wasted on margaritas and tequila shots?
That is what we in Texas call Friday.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on September 09, 2009, 12:48:28 PM
...
because theoretical and practical bilinguality leads to effective monolinguality over time.
I'll again use my own country as an example: when belgium was formed both dutch and french were officially considered equal. The reality however, was that dutch wasn't used in and even shunned by government due to the fact that everyone who was someone in Belgium spoke french. The result: no higher education in Dutch, no courts in Dutch, no constitution in Dutch, no government in Dutch, "et pour les flamans la même chose".
In such situations bilinguality is percieved as equal to de facto monolinguality. While the political situation in Quebec isn't as dire as the flemish situation even 50 years ago I'm guessing the feeling remains the same. For if Quebec was made totally bilingual why would anyone entering the place bother with the French? Even if they entered to spend the rest of their lives there. Very different from California cause everyone knows the migrants will eventually assimilate into english.
That is the core of it. The attraction of english is already so strong because of the N-A demographics that there's no justification to fragilise french any further by allowing full bilinguism across the board. Especially considering the increase in the influx of immigrants who will 'naturally' drift towards english since english is present in one form or another around the world.
As for Malthus' latest spurious argument, I must dreaming! As if anyone was deprived of fundamental rights by being asked, far too nicely IMO, to respect the majority of the inhabitants of this country! In this case as in others, collective rights trumps individual ones.
G.
Quebec is a country?
Quote from: Grallon on September 09, 2009, 02:39:25 PM
As for Malthus' latest spurious argument, I must dreaming! As if anyone was deprived of fundamental rights by being asked, far too nicely IMO, to respect the majority of the inhabitants of this country! In this case as in others, collective rights trumps individual ones.
I this captures the nub of the difference. In the British tradition, there is no such animal as "group rights" - the very idea is absurd. Clearly, the French tradition (at least as maintained in Canada) is not about the kinds of human rights that the rest of the western world has evolved to, but is instead about the rights of the collective. Marx used to talk about the rights of the collective all the time.
So, Gral et al, you guys simply won't be able to explain why you were all present in Canada before the Anglos, because outside Quebec we don't think of ourselves as just a part of the group, but as individuals. It is more than just a difference between French and English (the French in France do not talk much about the rights of the collective, for instance). I, for one, cannot even accept that such a stand is logical, let alone correct, so you will never be able to convince me that Zoupa was in Canada before the British arrived, no matter how hard you try. It simply does not compute in my world-view. That doesn't make it wrong, of course. I have the same problem with the highly religious, who may also be correct even though I cannot accept their claims as logically valid.
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2009, 02:09:26 PM
The German immigrants had entire towns and regions where not a single word of English was seen or heard. They came around eventually.
Many of the people in my district are not new to the country...and it is corporations who put up the Spanish billboards.
Quote from: ulmont on September 09, 2009, 02:29:13 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2009, 02:11:13 PM
Why the hell do people celebrate Cinco de Mayo in this country?
Any excuse to get wasted on margaritas and tequila shots?
:yes:
Collective rights, like the horrible and infamous right to self-determination, are an incredibly destructive concept. Individual rights are what is important. If enough individuals agree that a certain group should have certain privledges that is one thing, but they certainly should never be considered rights. No group has a right to anything.
Quote from: Grallon on September 09, 2009, 02:39:25 PM
As if anyone was deprived of fundamental rights by being asked, far too nicely IMO, to respect the majority of the inhabitants of this country!
G.
Actually, I think when a majority decides to get together and stomp on the rights of a minority is in fact the exact circumstance when individual rights are in the most danger.
The idea that the will of the collective a-priori trumps the rights of the individual must be some kind of Canadian thing.
Quote from: garbon on September 09, 2009, 02:53:05 PM
Many of the people in my district are not new to the country...and it is corporations who put up the Spanish billboards.
What does that have to do with it? The German communities in the US lasted for almost 100 years.
Quote from: Grallon on September 09, 2009, 02:39:25 PM
That is the core of it. The attraction of english is already so strong because of the N-A demographics that there's no justification to fragilise french any further by allowing full bilinguism across the board. Especially considering the increase in the influx of immigrants who will 'naturally' drift towards english since english is present in one form or another around the world.
If that's the case, then isn't this quest sort of akin to using a thimble to pitch water out of a sinking ship? Perhaps in a few generations the demographics will have changed enough that French is still thrown out.
Quote from: garbon on September 09, 2009, 02:56:03 PM
If that's the case, then isn't this quest sort of akin to using a thimble to pitch water out of a sinking ship? Perhaps in a few generations the demographics will have changed enough that French is still thrown out.
The French Canadians are doing the 'surrender of the cradle' right now anyway.
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2009, 02:55:23 PM
What does that have to do with it? The German communities in the US lasted for almost 100 years.
And this is the 21st century. :mellow:
Note, many of the people in my neighborhood also speak English...I'm not sure why they would suddenly decide to throw out Spanish.
Quote from: Grallon on September 09, 2009, 02:39:25 PM
As for Malthus' latest spurious argument, I must dreaming! As if anyone was deprived of fundamental rights by being asked, far too nicely IMO, to respect the majority of the inhabitants of this country! In this case as in others, collective rights trumps individual ones.
G.
Wait ... aren't
Anglos the "majority of the inhabitants of this country"? By your logic, their "rights" trump yours, and you ought to show "respect" to them by speaking English. :D
Not that I agree with that logic of course. To my mind, "rights" are something individuals have.
Quote from: garbon on September 09, 2009, 03:00:17 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2009, 02:55:23 PM
What does that have to do with it? The German communities in the US lasted for almost 100 years.
And this is the 21st century. :mellow:
Note, many of the people in my neighborhood also speak English...I'm not sure why they would suddenly decide to throw out Spanish.
Ok then they are already assimilating their own way. There is no rule that says you have to completely not speak your native language to join the club or somehow assimilate borg like into the WASP collective.
Again in the past sometimes this process took 3 or 4 generations or longer.
I am not sure the relevence of the 21st century barb....but um consider me injured.
Quote from: Grallon on September 09, 2009, 02:39:25 PM
That is the core of it. The attraction of english is already so strong because of the N-A demographics that there's no justification to fragilise french any further by allowing full bilinguism across the board. Especially considering the increase in the influx of immigrants who will 'naturally' drift towards english since english is present in one form or another around the world.
As for Malthus' latest spurious argument, I must dreaming! As if anyone was deprived of fundamental rights by being asked, far too nicely IMO, to respect the majority of the inhabitants of this country! In this case as in others, collective rights trumps individual ones.
G.
Co the collective rights of the majority of francaphones in quebec should trump the individual rights of theanglos and immigrants in quebec, while at the same time the collective right of the anglo majority in canada should be ignored in favour of the indivdual right of the minority of quebec within the federation?
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2009, 03:03:51 PM
Ok then they are already assimilating their own way. There is no rule that says you have to completely not speak your native language to join the club or somehow assimilate borg like into the WASP collective.
Again in the past sometimes this process took 3 or 4 generations or longer.
I am not sure the relevence of the 21st century barb....but um consider me injured.
Well I'm not sure why every immigrant group will react in the same way as immigrant groups of the past.
Quote from: HVC on September 09, 2009, 03:06:33 PM
Quote from: Grallon on September 09, 2009, 02:39:25 PM
That is the core of it. The attraction of english is already so strong because of the N-A demographics that there's no justification to fragilise french any further by allowing full bilinguism across the board. Especially considering the increase in the influx of immigrants who will 'naturally' drift towards english since english is present in one form or another around the world.
As for Malthus' latest spurious argument, I must dreaming! As if anyone was deprived of fundamental rights by being asked, far too nicely IMO, to respect the majority of the inhabitants of this country! In this case as in others, collective rights trumps individual ones.
G.
Co the collective rights of the majority of francaphones in quebec should trump the individual rights of theanglos and immigrants in quebec, while at the same time the collective right of the anglo majority in canada should be ignored in favour of the indivdual right of the minority of quebec within the federation?
I bet there is some minority of people in Quebec somewhere that speak English, and are an actual majority in some geographic portion of Quebec. I think they should pass laws banning French in their little neighborhood, so that their collective rights won't be infringed.
Good for the goose and all that...
They don't really have any ways to do that. If they had, they probably would have done it by now.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 09, 2009, 03:11:28 PM
They don't really have any ways to do that. If they had, they probably would have done it by now.
Mobs with pitch forks and torches worked int he past :p
You know what's funny? The text of the Official Language Act (Loi 22) is also in English.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 09, 2009, 03:11:28 PM
They don't really have any ways to do that. If they had, they probably would have done it by now.
You mean they are denied representation in the Democratic Peoples Republic of Quebec????
Scandalous!
No, I just mean they don't have anywhere to legislate on such things.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 09, 2009, 03:13:36 PM
You know what's funny? The text of the Official Language Act (Loi 22) is also in English.
Anglos oppressed by their own language? Damn Quebecois and their cruel irony :lol:
Quote from: garbon on September 09, 2009, 03:00:17 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2009, 02:55:23 PM
What does that have to do with it? The German communities in the US lasted for almost 100 years.
And this is the 21st century. :mellow:
Note, many of the people in my neighborhood also speak English...I'm not sure why they would suddenly decide to throw out Spanish.
so they're not at all a good counterexample in other words. Assuming a bilingual Quebec there'd be no reason whatsoever for anyone to learn or use french in Quebec, ever.
as for collective rights versus individual rights... It's funny as it's the francophones using the exact same argument over here in Flanders: the law of the individual vs. the law of the land, except that they use it to continually attempt to redefine internal borders in favour of the francophone community while at the same time claiming to love Belgium. Well, they're loving it alright... to death.
Thing is: when the francophones were ascendant over here they used these same individual "rights" to deny the dutch-speaking group their individual rights, and that collectively. Until the flemish more or less collectively managed to get their individual rights respected and safeguarded through language-laws, a language-frontier and a federalisation of the country. And we do that collectively, which is why we don't generally give a rats ass about what you speak at home or in private, but when you're going to deal with the government you'll do it in dutch. (many flemish are francophone at home, and have been so for generations, but use dutch when dealing with the government. Unlike the francophones moving in mostly from Brussels who a) leave their city because it's too full of arabs/too busy/too filthy/to expensive b) come live in Flanders because it's none of (a) but c) refuse to learn Dutch and d) have the arrogance to demand that the communities in which they live be ceded to Brussels, which they e) left in the first place)
Obviously this is the local situation but sometimes I get the impression that Quebec is more or less struggling with the same problem.
And as Grubler said: no amount of explaining will ever suffice to make it clear cause it'll only become understandable when the tables are somehow turned.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on September 09, 2009, 03:25:28 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 09, 2009, 03:00:17 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2009, 02:55:23 PM
What does that have to do with it? The German communities in the US lasted for almost 100 years.
And this is the 21st century. :mellow:
Note, many of the people in my neighborhood also speak English...I'm not sure why they would suddenly decide to throw out Spanish.
so they're not at all a good counterexample in other words. Assuming a bilingual Quebec there'd be no reason whatsoever for anyone to learn or use french in Quebec, ever.
Except that they might want to - and if they don't want to so much that they must be forced to it via legislation, then it isn't really worth it anyway.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 09, 2009, 10:59:07 AM
Berkut is just being Berkut. He doesn't really believe what he writes, he hasn't thought it through either.
I disagree, Berkut is right. Ideology and political culture is important not language. If everyone in America woke up tomorrow only knowing how to speak Spanish would anything change? No, we'd have the same beliefs and act the same ways as always.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on September 09, 2009, 03:25:28 PM
And as Grubler said: no amount of explaining will ever suffice to make it clear cause it'll only become understandable when the tables are somehow turned.
You didn't read grumbler's post very carefully...
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on September 09, 2009, 03:25:28 PM
so they're not at all a good counterexample in other words. Assuming a bilingual Quebec there'd be no reason whatsoever for anyone to learn or use french in Quebec, ever.
And yet many people in my neighborhood want to learn Spanish and in fact fairly cheap Spanish classes for English speakers are taught at the community college a few blocks from me.
Quote from: garbon on September 09, 2009, 03:09:21 PM
Well I'm not sure why every immigrant group will react in the same way as immigrant groups of the past.
Because it is in their own best economic and social interests to do so.
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2009, 03:45:52 PM
Because it is in their own best economic and social interests to do so.
Being bilingual? Sure. Becoming "wholly anglo*"? Not so much.
*as much as one can be said to be wholly anglo, in this country.
Quote from: garbon on September 09, 2009, 03:47:34 PM
Being bilingual? Sure. Becoming "wholly anglo*"? Not so much.
*as much as one can be said to be wholly anglo, in this country.
Ok I did not realize that was the litmus test. If they continue to learn two languages then that is simply something the United States can put to good use in dealings with the Spanish speaking countries in this hemisphere. I have my doubts they will continue to do so, learning even their native language is more than most Americans manage these days, but more power to them.
I misunderstood what you were saying: I thought you were saying why would they ever bother to learn English since everything in their neighborhood was in Spanish.
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2009, 03:51:42 PM
I misunderstood what you were saying: I thought you were saying why would they ever bother to learn English since everything in their neighborhood was in Spanish.
No not at all. I was simply trying to bring up a positive example of two languages co-existing.
Quote from: HVC on September 09, 2009, 03:06:33 PM
... the collective rights of the majority of francophones in Quebec should trump the individual rights of the anglos and immigrants in Quebec, while at the same time the collective right of the anglo majority in Canada should be ignored in favour of the indivdual right of the minority of Quebec within the federation?
I see you're still working under the assumption that Canada is a unitary country composed of one people (which is, btw, what I described above). Except that it is not. Canada is a federation, that is a union of soveraign polities; one of which happens to be the homeland of *another* people, ours. This means that there are 2 majorities at play here: one anglophone and one francophone. And considering that the constitution of this
federation recognises full soveraignty to the member states when it comes to linguistic and cultural matters, you can see for yourself that what applies in one case does not apply in another.
Now I've tried to provide historical context so that you people would understand where we are coming from when it comes to language laws. After that, whether or not you choose to aknowledge the legitimacy of the position is immaterial since we, as a majority, find it quite legitimate; enough to justify said laws.
There has been linguistic peace in Quebec for a generation, and if those anglophones living here have adapted to the mild regulations this majority has imposed on them, then I'm sure you'll realize how irritating we find the rethoric against these when coming from outsiders who are neither directly involved nor affected by said laws. Especially when one understands that the anglo minority in Quebec isn't deprived of anything. English isn't baned from public display, it's merely required to be less conspicuous. Anglo institutions aren't forbidden but merely asked to aknowledge the fact they exist and operate in a primarily francophone context.
I must add that despite all these (insert, according to some, grossly derogatory-nazi inspired-hyperbolic) impositions, english is still making headways, further endangering our survival as a group. And despite your fondest wishes, despite very real efforts made in the past to see us disappear, we will not disappear to please you; or to comfort you in your worldview.
I'll leave you to ponder the following text:
QuoteIn a phrase that gave bitter offence Durham described French Canadians as "a people with no history and no literature." He believed the only solution to the ethnic problem was the assimilation of the French group into the Anglo Saxon. The national character of their province must inevitably be that of the British race.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on September 09, 2009, 04:41:26 PM
I must add that despite all these (insert, according to some, grossly derogatory-nazi inspired-hyperbolic) impositions, english is still making headways, further endangering our survival as a group. And despite your fondest wishes, despite very real efforts made in the past to see us disappear, we will not disappear to please you; or to comfort you in your worldview.
I suppose it doesn't really matter
why you disappear. :P
Quote from: garbon on September 09, 2009, 04:49:51 PM
I suppose it doesn't really matter why you disappear. :P
Was this intended to shatter me? :P
Foolish boy, as if anyone's life had any meaning whatsoever. :shakes head:
G.
Quote from: Grallon on September 09, 2009, 05:13:25 PM
Was this intended to shatter me? :P
Foolish boy, as if anyone's life had any meaning whatsoever. :shakes head:
G.
How exactly did you get any of that from what I said? :unsure:
Quote from: grumbler on September 09, 2009, 02:51:42 PM
I this captures the nub of the difference. In the British tradition, there is no such animal as "group rights" - the very idea is absurd. Clearly, the French tradition (at least as maintained in Canada) is not about the kinds of human rights that the rest of the western world has evolved to, but is instead about the rights of the collective. Marx used to talk about the rights of the collective all the time.
So, Gral et al, you guys simply won't be able to explain why you were all present in Canada before the Anglos, because outside Quebec we don't think of ourselves as just a part of the group, but as individuals. It is more than just a difference between French and English (the French in France do not talk much about the rights of the collective, for instance). I, for one, cannot even accept that such a stand is logical, let alone correct, so you will never be able to convince me that Zoupa was in Canada before the British arrived, no matter how hard you try. It simply does not compute in my world-view. That doesn't make it wrong, of course. I have the same problem with the highly religious, who may also be correct even though I cannot accept their claims as logically valid.
That is a very interesting way of looking at it. As I was reading your comment I was reflecting on the arguments made by "first nations" here in Canada asserting aboriginal title. It strikes me as very similar logic - rights based on status rather then an based on the western tradition of individual rights.
Garbon, I have scanned the thread but I didnt see answer from Oex to the question you posed to me this morning. I would be very interested to see what he has to say about that.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 09, 2009, 10:29:00 PM
Garbon, I have scanned the thread but I didnt see answer from Oex to the question you posed to me this morning. I would be very interested to see what he has to say about that.
As would I. :)
Quote from: Malthus on September 09, 2009, 01:37:15 PM
To my mind, the issue is one of how much interference in individual rights is justified in pursuit of "national" or group rights.
If one accepts the thesis that there is some value in seeing the world in a particular way by speaking a particular language (and I do), then it would be a real shame if that language were to die out.
On the other hand, if one accepts that thesis, then it is a real imposition and deprivation of rights by the state for the state to, in effect, choose what language you, as an individual, will speak in.
OTOH, if the matter is merely that language is a handy ethnic shibboleth or badge of identity, then the matter becomes clear: it is an obvious and inexcusable imposition by the state to require ethnic conformity by the individual, if they do not wish to so conform.
How does the state, in effect, choose what language you, as an individual, will speak in? :huh:
We provide free education in english to the anglophone community and folks coming here from other provinces. Private education in english is available to anyone.
How does the qc state control what you will speak? :huh:
Quote from: Zoupa on September 09, 2009, 11:11:33 PM
How does the qc state control what you will speak? :huh:
Can a company in Quebec choose to do business in only English if they wish?
Quote from: Berkut on September 10, 2009, 07:56:16 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 09, 2009, 11:11:33 PM
How does the qc state control what you will speak? :huh:
Can a company in Quebec choose to do business in only English if they wish?
No. The Business language of Quebec is French. Atleast, officialy.
Unofficialy, if no one complains & you write everything official in French, you could do the rest in English.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 10, 2009, 08:00:53 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 10, 2009, 07:56:16 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 09, 2009, 11:11:33 PM
How does the qc state control what you will speak? :huh:
Can a company in Quebec choose to do business in only English if they wish?
No. The Business language of Quebec is French.
Well, there you go then.
I don't know if French-Canadians have a history or literature but they sure suck. They're like Serbs or something: unloved, unwanted and unpleasant.
Quote from: The Brain on September 10, 2009, 11:12:45 AM
I don't know if French-Canadians have a history or literature but they sure suck. They're like Serbs or something: unloved, unwanted and unpleasant.
At least in Vienna the Serbs are much more sufferable and pleasant than the hard nationalist Croats.
Quote from: The Brain on September 10, 2009, 11:12:45 AM
I don't know if French-Canadians have a history or literature but they sure suck. They're like Serbs or something: unloved, unwanted and unpleasant.
We do. You suck. Swedes, wtf have they done?
Quebec-
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.thehollywoodgossip.com%2Fimages%2Fgallery%2Fceline-dion-picture.jpg&hash=3fc7ef2fbea234eb0befbf1225109a64551526ee)
Sweden-
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.musicstars.com.ar%2Fa%2Face_of_base%2Face_of_base1.jpg&hash=118540c9d99bc25b6a32d56a60f14793769e1bde)
Quote from: The Brain on September 10, 2009, 11:12:45 AM
I don't know if French-Canadians have a history or literature but they sure suck. They're like Serbs or something: unloved, unwanted and unpleasant.
Don't let Grallon skew your view too much.
Quote from: The Brain on September 10, 2009, 11:12:45 AM
I don't know if French-Canadians have a history or literature but they sure suck. They're like Serbs or something: unloved, unwanted and unpleasant.
Not true: there is at least one good authour from Quebec. Mordecai Richler is from Quebec.
;)
Ace of motherfucking Base?
:lol:
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 10, 2009, 12:49:36 PM
Ace of motherfucking Base?
:lol:
Abba's too cool to make the point I was going for. -_-
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 10, 2009, 01:27:56 PM
Abba's too cool to make the point I was going for. -_-
:blink:
Quote from: garbon on September 10, 2009, 01:33:36 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 10, 2009, 01:27:56 PM
Abba's too cool to make the point I was going for. -_-
:blink:
Would it make more sense to you if I said "not uncool enough" instead of "too cool?"
No, not really.
Quote from: Malthus on September 10, 2009, 12:46:03 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 10, 2009, 11:12:45 AM
I don't know if French-Canadians have a history or literature but they sure suck. They're like Serbs or something: unloved, unwanted and unpleasant.
Not true: there is at least one good authour from Quebec. Mordecai Richler is from Quebec.
;)
:joo:
and NOT Red Fisher
Hockey Heros and Me !!!???
:P
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 10, 2009, 12:29:44 PM
Don't let Grallon skew your view too much.
The feeling is mutual <_<
G.
Quote from: Grallon on September 10, 2009, 02:16:28 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 10, 2009, 12:29:44 PM
Don't let Grallon skew your view too much.
The feeling is mutual <_<
G.
If make posts about pissing in the face of other people, don't be surprised if you get a negative reaction. ;)
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 10, 2009, 02:52:33 PM
If make posts about pissing in the face of other people, don't be surprised if you get a negative reaction. ;)
WTF? :lol:
Quote from: The Brain on September 10, 2009, 04:10:54 PM
All that you want is another baby.
This context makes that very sinister!
Quote from: Malthus on September 10, 2009, 03:20:10 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 10, 2009, 02:52:33 PM
If make posts about pissing in the face of other people, don't be surprised if you get a negative reaction. ;)
WTF? :lol:
typos aside, I was refering to Grallon elequent post earlier in the thread when he was responding to oex by saying he was pissing in the face of the rest of us.
Cant seem to bring myself to respect someone after reading something like that.
This thread has delivered. Thanks everyone.
Quote from: Berkut on September 10, 2009, 09:40:41 PM
This thread has delivered. Thanks everyone.
In multiple ways.
Who would have predicted.
Well, after all that's been posted in this thread trying to explain why the French-speaking community in Canada feels that Quebec needs the language laws, it seems to me to boil down to this: They used to be discriminated against* and now they are determined to be the ones doing the discriminating.
*And there's no doubt that they were discriminated against, though nowhere near what some groups (like U.S. blacks pre-Civil Rights Act) have faced.
Quote from: dps on September 10, 2009, 09:50:53 PM
Well, after all that's been posted in this thread trying to explain why the French-speaking community in Canada feels that Quebec needs the language laws, it seems to me to boil down to this: They used to be discriminated against* and now they are determined to be the ones doing the discriminating.
*And there's no doubt that they were discriminated against, though nowhere near what some groups (like U.S. blacks pre-Civil Rights Act) have faced.
Merci pour la pseudo-psychologie à 2 cennes. C'est super intéressant et surtout très constructif.
Thank you for you pseudo-phsychological 2 cents. It's very interesting and above all very constuctive
Someones gotta follow the half size rule :p
Quote from: Zoupa on September 10, 2009, 10:55:59 PM
Merci pour la pseudo-psychologie à 2 cennes. C'est super intéressant et surtout très constructif.
Cool, I speak more French than I thought. :cool:
J'y suis allé assez tranquilement, en utilisant mon francais de france.
Si j'me met a jaser avec des toé pis des moé, c'est garantie que vous comprenez pus rien la gagne.
I went easy on you(?) by using French French.
If i chated with you using "toé pis des moé (method of speach i guess), i guarentee that you wouldn't understand (the win*)
*literal translation
i know i'm no longer good in french becasue now my head hurts lol
Sorry, Zoups, this isn't Quebec. :(
Et alors?
Vous etes tous plein de liberte d'expression aux STATES, comme dirait Elvis. Fait que t'a pas besoin de t'excuser mon petit schtroumpf.
Quote from: HVC on September 10, 2009, 11:00:11 PM
Thank you for you pseudo-phsychological 2 cents. It's very interesting and above all very constuctive
Someones gotta follow the half size rule :p
:lol:
Quote from: Zoupa on September 10, 2009, 11:03:45 PM
J'y suis allé assez tranquilement, en utilisant mon francais de france.
Si j'me met a jaser avec des toé pis des moé, c'est garantie que vous comprenez pus rien la gagne.
ou si c moi ki l'écris.
:P
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 11, 2009, 06:13:04 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 10, 2009, 11:03:45 PM
J'y suis allé assez tranquilement, en utilisant mon francais de france.
Si j'me met a jaser avec des toé pis des moé, c'est garantie que vous comprenez pus rien la gagne.
ou si c moi ki l'écris.
:P
:bleeding:
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 10, 2009, 07:20:23 PM
... I was refering to Grallon elequent post earlier in the thread when he was responding to oex by saying he was pissing in the face of the rest of us.
Cant seem to bring myself to respect someone after reading something like that.
This is what I wrote, read carefully this time:
Quote...But then again I've said it before and I'll keep on saying it, if only to piss in the face of our canadian posters' conceits, their nation is based on the denial of ours. All sorts of convoluted arguments are constantly used to justify said denial. And nowhere is it more obvious than when it comes to our language laws...
As usual you read only what you wanted to read in order to comfort your own prejudices - like so many others here whenever I write something. Personally it's bad faith and hypocrisy I can't stomach.
This btw is no doubt why Oex hasn't bothered wasting his time with a thoughtfull reply: there no sense speaking to people who won't listen; one might as well try to engage a wall in a conversation: deaf, blind, dumb!
G.
It's not quite that I haven't bothered - if I thought these discussions were completely useless, for me or my interlocutors, I would have dropped them long ago - it's more that I don't have the time right now.
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 11, 2009, 09:30:35 AM
It's not quite that I haven't bothered - if I thought these discussions were completely useless, for me or my interlocutors, I would have dropped them long ago - it's more that I don't have the time right now.
When you get the time it would be great if you would provide a response to Garbon's question. As always I am interested in your view.
Quote from: Grallon on September 11, 2009, 07:14:27 AM
This btw is no doubt why Oex hasn't bothered wasting his time with a thoughtfull reply: there no sense speaking to people who won't listen; one might as well try to engage a wall in a conversation: deaf, blind, dumb!
G.
Someone who was an opponent of your cause would hope that you, and not people like Oex, Rex and GF, spoke for your movement. Your rhetoric I can easily ignore. The others are thought provoking and over the years have made me reconsider my views.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 11, 2009, 06:13:04 AM
ou si c moi ki l'écris.
:P
How can you advocate French language laws and then refuse to speak French?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 11, 2009, 11:16:52 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 11, 2009, 06:13:04 AM
ou si c moi ki l'écris.
:P
How can you advocate French language laws and then refuse to speak French?
Grey Fox secretly longs to be a klingon :contract:
Quote from: Zoupa on September 10, 2009, 11:40:09 PM
Et alors?
Vous etes tous plein de liberte d'expression aux STATES, comme dirait Elvis. Fait que t'a pas besoin de t'excuser mon petit schtroumpf.
We only really care about freedom for Americans. What's a dead junkie have to do with anything?
Quote from: Grallon on September 11, 2009, 07:14:27 AM
This btw is no doubt why Oex hasn't bothered wasting his time with a thoughtfull reply: there no sense speaking to people who won't listen; one might as well try to engage a wall in a conversation: deaf, blind, dumb!
G.
Actually I was quite interested in hearing an answer to my question...that's always been the rub for me.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 11, 2009, 11:16:52 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 11, 2009, 06:13:04 AM
ou si c moi ki l'écris.
:P
How can you advocate French language laws and then refuse to speak French?
:lol:
I refuse to use the frozen in time French the Académie deemed to be the French.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 11, 2009, 10:53:51 AM
Quote from: Grallon on September 11, 2009, 07:14:27 AM
This btw is no doubt why Oex hasn't bothered wasting his time with a thoughtfull reply: there no sense speaking to people who won't listen; one might as well try to engage a wall in a conversation: deaf, blind, dumb!
G.
Someone who was an opponent of your cause would hope that you, and not people like Oex, Rex and GF, spoke for your movement. Your rhetoric I can easily ignore. The others are thought provoking and over the years have made me reconsider my views.
I like being included with Oex & Rex. Makes me feel...good. :bowler:
I enjoyed this thread because it really allowed me to see a completely foreign mindset held (apparently) by a significant number of people located not far away. I have always been fascinated by Canadian issues and views, because it is "the familiar made unfamiliar" - that is, Canadians can seem so much like me, but then sometimes show themselves to be completely unlike me.
I don't take sides in any of this. I don't have a dog in this fight, though I think I (and many Americans) can learn a lot by observing what Canadians succeed at and fail at (and the reverse is also true) precisely because Americans and Canadians are similar but distinctly different. I cannot wrap my mind around the concept of "collective rights" and (at least some) Canadians probably cannot wrap their minds around my concept of individual rights, but that makes the mutual explanations more valuable, not less.
Quote from: garbon on September 11, 2009, 12:10:40 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 10, 2009, 11:40:09 PM
Et alors?
Vous etes tous plein de liberte d'expression aux STATES, comme dirait Elvis. Fait que t'a pas besoin de t'excuser mon petit schtroumpf.
We only really care about freedom for Americans. What's a dead junkie have to do with anything?
Gratton, pas Presley.
Must be someone irrelevant then.