Tories to put Royal back in the navy and air force (http://www.thespec.com/news/canada/article/578849--tories-putting-royal-back-in-the-navy-air-force-reports)
Shameful & despicable decision.
Oliver's Army still don't get no love from the Royals :bowler: :hmm:
Quote from: viper37 on August 15, 2011, 08:08:42 PM
Tories to put Royal back in the navy and air force (http://www.thespec.com/news/canada/article/578849--tories-putting-royal-back-in-the-navy-air-force-reports)
Shameful & despicable decision.
Tell us how you really feel.
so they're changing the name? big woop. Also, what costs are they bitching about? new stationary or something?
At last. How anyone can think that this decision is shameful is beyond me. You live in a constitutional monarchy. If you don't like it, go live in some hellhole like the US or France.
Quote from: HVC on August 15, 2011, 08:45:24 PM
so they're changing the name? big woop. Also, what costs are they bitching about? new stationary or something?
I think they're saying that they'd be mad if they split up the administration into three independent services, because of the cost of duplicating the administration across three branches. It's an argument that has evolved from watching the wastefulness and general uselessness of the USAF.
do they have to make different administrations because of the names changes?
Quote from: viper37 on August 15, 2011, 08:08:42 PM
Tories to put Royal back in the navy and air force (http://www.thespec.com/news/canada/article/578849--tories-putting-royal-back-in-the-navy-air-force-reports)
Shameful & despicable decision.
Do you have the same objection to the Royal Canadian Mountie Fagits?
Hey you could have joined up with us in 1776 if you wanted to. Now that was a shameful decision.
Like Canada has a real navy anymore.
Quote from: Valmy on August 15, 2011, 09:13:50 PM
Hey you could have joined up with us in 1776 if you wanted to. Now that was a shameful decision.
:yes:
Rather than invade Quebec, Arnold should have assisted Eddy in his attempt to take Fort Cumberland in Nova Scotia.
Quote from: Neil on August 15, 2011, 08:52:45 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 15, 2011, 08:45:24 PM
so they're changing the name? big woop. Also, what costs are they bitching about? new stationary or something?
I think they're saying that they'd be mad if they split up the administration into three independent services, because of the cost of duplicating the administration across three branches. It's an argument that has evolved from watching the wastefulness and general uselessness of the USAF.
There was a viable period there between the end of WWII and when the United States renounced terror bombing.
Anyway, it slipped past me that Canada had ever changed the names. That's what happens when your closest ally betrays you, you stop paying attention to its useless wee armed forces.
Quote from: dps on August 15, 2011, 09:18:54 PM
Like Canada has a real navy anymore.
I hear they fought Spain to standstill in the 1990s.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 15, 2011, 09:28:49 PMThere was a viable period there between the end of WWII and when the United States renounced terror bombing.
Anyway, it slipped past me that Canada had ever changed the names. That's what happens when your closest ally betrays you, you stop paying attention to its useless wee armed forces.
When did Canada betray the US?
Quote from: Jacob on August 15, 2011, 09:36:55 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 15, 2011, 09:28:49 PMThere was a viable period there between the end of WWII and when the United States renounced terror bombing.
Anyway, it slipped past me that Canada had ever changed the names. That's what happens when your closest ally betrays you, you stop paying attention to its useless wee armed forces.
When did Canada betray the US?
You were not willing to fight fascism. :bowler:
Quote from: Valmy on August 15, 2011, 09:13:50 PM
Hey you could have joined up with us in 1776 if you wanted to. Now that was a shameful decision.
Yeah. Honour and loyalty are extremely shameful. :rolleyes:
I like it. Best Decisions made by any Tories ever in the entire history of all the Tories parties in the world.
:yeah:
I love it. :yeah:
Quote from: Ideologue on August 15, 2011, 09:41:00 PM
You were not willing to fight fascism. :bowler:
We were in against the Fascists in 1939, before you lot.
Quote from: Jacob on August 15, 2011, 10:34:13 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 15, 2011, 09:41:00 PM
You were not willing to fight fascism. :bowler:
We were in against the Fascists in 1939, before you lot.
Alright, we owed you two years of prep time and shooting at u-boats.
Are you ready yet? It's 2005.
P.S.: You also betrayed Britain and Australia.
P.P.S.: I am kind of messing with you. I'm deeply unhappy with Canada's decision to remain aloof, but I don't really hold it against you personally. :P
Quote from: Ideologue on August 15, 2011, 11:17:06 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 15, 2011, 10:34:13 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 15, 2011, 09:41:00 PM
You were not willing to fight fascism. :bowler:
We were in against the Fascists in 1939, before you lot.
Alright, we owed you two years of prep time and shooting at u-boats.
Are you ready yet? It's 2005.
P.S.: You also betrayed Britain and Australia.
eh? I'm pretty sure it's 2011 and Canada has participated in Afghanistan for a long time with gusto, with among others the gheyest of all military unit's Princess Patty's Light Infantry...
They were bound by treaty to assist in Afghanistan.
In a few years time if things get really bad I'd advocate we invade Alberta. Realistically what could Canada do about it? And we can just take the $300bn in gold or whatever we have in reserves and distribute it to Albertans once we've invaded in exchange for them shutting up and being loyal Americans.
Then we can rape all of its oil away and any by products or waste from the extraction we can pump directly into BC or Saskatchewan.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 15, 2011, 11:30:38 PM
In a few years time if things get really bad I'd advocate we invade Alberta. Realistically what could Canada do about it? And we can just take the $300bn in gold or whatever we have in reserves and distribute it to Albertans once we've invaded in exchange for them shutting up and being loyal Americans.
Then we can rape all of its oil away and any by products or waste from the extraction we can pump directly into BC or Saskatchewan.
:D
Quote from: Neil on August 15, 2011, 08:48:28 PM
At last. How anyone can think that this decision is shameful is beyond me. You live in a constitutional monarchy. If you don't like it, go live in some hellhole like the US or France.
we should seek to distance ourselves from the monarchy and abandon this archaic system, and stop living as a colony. We're independant, or we're not. This sends the signal we're not.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 15, 2011, 09:01:02 PM
Do you have the same objection to the Royal Canadian Mountie Fagits?
No, they are barely noticeable in Quebec. We don't hear much about the RCMP going abroad. The Armed Forces, however, is another story. I've never seen a red Mountie on his horse in Quebec, only in Ontario. Never seen a RCMP patrol car in Quebec either.
Quote from: Valmy on August 15, 2011, 09:13:50 PM
Hey you could have joined up with us in 1776 if you wanted to. Now that was a shameful decision.
some of us did, but most were turned off at the idea of joining forces with the same dudes that hated us and seek to force convert&assimilare all canadians ;)
Quote from: Scipio on August 15, 2011, 09:33:39 PM
Quote from: dps on August 15, 2011, 09:18:54 PM
Like Canada has a real navy anymore.
I hear they fought Spain to standstill in the 1990s.
that was the coast guard. And it worked, since they never tried to fish in our waters again :menace:
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 15, 2011, 09:53:09 PM
I like it. Best Decisions made by any Tories ever in the entire history of all the Tories parties in the world.
:yeah:
from a seperatist point of view, it is of course the best decision ever. <sigh>.
Quote from: viper37 on August 16, 2011, 08:27:20 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 15, 2011, 08:48:28 PM
At last. How anyone can think that this decision is shameful is beyond me. You live in a constitutional monarchy. If you don't like it, go live in some hellhole like the US or France.
we should seek to distance ourselves from the monarchy and abandon this archaic system, and stop living as a colony. We're independant, or we're not. This sends the signal we're not.
Having a monarch doesn't make a place a colony, and Canada is clearly independent, no matter what we call the armed forces. Have been since the 30s.
And why would we want to distance ourselves from the monarchy? It's an excellent system that has served us well.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 15, 2011, 11:30:38 PM
In a few years time if things get really bad I'd advocate we invade Alberta. Realistically what could Canada do about it? And we can just take the $300bn in gold or whatever we have in reserves and distribute it to Albertans once we've invaded in exchange for them shutting up and being loyal Americans.
Then we can rape all of its oil away and any by products or waste from the extraction we can pump directly into BC or Saskatchewan.
300 Billion is a bit excessive to buy off 800 people.
Quote from: viper37 on August 16, 2011, 08:31:57 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 15, 2011, 09:53:09 PM
I like it. Best Decisions made by any Tories ever in the entire history of all the Tories parties in the world.
:yeah:
from a seperatist point of view, it is of course the best decision ever. <sigh>.
Well, not so much. The only people who are going to be convinced to the cause of separatism by using 'royal' are the people who are already hardcore separatists.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 15, 2011, 11:30:38 PM
In a few years time if things get really bad I'd advocate we invade Alberta. Realistically what could Canada do about it? And we can just take the $300bn in gold or whatever we have in reserves and distribute it to Albertans once we've invaded in exchange for them shutting up and being loyal Americans.
Then we can rape all of its oil away and any by products or waste from the extraction we can pump directly into BC or Saskatchewan.
reallistically, with the state your finances are in, you won't even have an army in a few years. Most soldiers will desert like those of the Red Army after the collapse of the USSR. Your airplanes and your warships will be sold at discount to China and various arms dealers across the world.
Quote from: Neil on August 16, 2011, 08:35:26 AM
Quote from: viper37 on August 16, 2011, 08:31:57 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 15, 2011, 09:53:09 PM
I like it. Best Decisions made by any Tories ever in the entire history of all the Tories parties in the world.
:yeah:
from a seperatist point of view, it is of course the best decision ever. <sigh>.
Well, not so much. The only people who are going to be convinced to the cause of separatism by using 'royal' are the people who are already hardcore separatists.
no, really, no. This is the best thing that happenned to the PQ in a long time.
Quote from: Neil on August 16, 2011, 08:33:13 AM
Having a monarch doesn't make a place a colony, and Canada is clearly independent, no matter what we call the armed forces. Have been since the 30s.
having a ruler not of your country makes one a colony. re-affirming at every turn that you can't live without your foreign ruler is a symbol of colonialism.
Quote
And why would we want to distance ourselves from the monarchy? It's an excellent system that has served us well.
How did it served us well? By sending us to die in Europe in 1914 to defend the Motherland? By sending us to fight in South Africa to keep the Boers in line? By maintaining a non elected head of state with hereditary titles?
I just don't see how it's a good system, sorry. I'm not singing God Save the Queen every morning either, mind you.
Quote from: dps on August 15, 2011, 09:18:54 PM
Like Canada has a real navy anymore.
surface ships are ok. it's the British submarines that are not. See, that's what you get for being a colony, they send you their scrap and call it a gift.
Quote from: viper37 on August 16, 2011, 08:31:57 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 15, 2011, 09:53:09 PM
I like it. Best Decisions made by any Tories ever in the entire history of all the Tories parties in the world.
:yeah:
from a seperatist point of view, it is of course the best decision ever. <sigh>.
but I'm not a separatist. I just think that the Canadian Royal Air Force sounds better then the Alternative.
Forget about the name. The article makes it sound as if they're re-separating the services. If this is the case, what's the rationale behind it?
Quote from: Neil on August 16, 2011, 08:33:13 AM
Quote from: viper37 on August 16, 2011, 08:27:20 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 15, 2011, 08:48:28 PM
At last. How anyone can think that this decision is shameful is beyond me. You live in a constitutional monarchy. If you don't like it, go live in some hellhole like the US or France.
we should seek to distance ourselves from the monarchy and abandon this archaic system, and stop living as a colony. We're independant, or we're not. This sends the signal we're not.
Having a monarch doesn't make a place a colony, and Canada is clearly independent, no matter what we call the armed forces. Have been since the 30s.
And why would we want to distance ourselves from the monarchy? It's an excellent system that has served us well.
Well, the 80's at the very least.
Quote from: viper37 on August 16, 2011, 08:40:57 AM
How did it served us well? By sending us to die in Europe in 1914 to defend the Motherland? By sending us to fight in South Africa to keep the Boers in line?
Sending you to fight in the Boer War? Huh? The Canadians were volunteers and the UK paid all their expenses. The Canadians asked to go fight.
As for WWI again it was volunteers until Canada voted to conscript itself.
In short: you know damn well that was not the Brits or the figure head monarchy's fault. Don't be that guy.
Quote from: Valmy on August 16, 2011, 09:36:46 AM
Sending you to fight in the Boer War? Huh? The Canadians were volunteers and the UK paid all their expenses. The Canadians asked to go fight.
everyone paid for this. Doesn't matter if they are volunteers, a true country does not send it's people fight someone else's colonial wars.
Quote
As for WWI again it was volunteers until Canada voted to conscript itself.
Until the government who promised not to use conscription decided it was a good idea. And again, it was to fight a colonial war.
Quote
In short: you know damn well that was not the Brits or the figure head monarchy's fault. Don't be that guy.
Neil says monarchy served us well. I am disputing that fact. Afaik, the US did not fight in Britain's colonial wars. That's what it means being independant. You may make mistakes, but they are you own mistakes.
That's like leaving home for the first time. Of course, being at home with mom&dad has benefits. More so than living alone the first few years. but over time, who would willingly go back to mommy & daddy?
Quote from: Valmy on August 16, 2011, 09:36:46 AM
Quote from: viper37 on August 16, 2011, 08:40:57 AM
How did it served us well? By sending us to die in Europe in 1914 to defend the Motherland? By sending us to fight in South Africa to keep the Boers in line?
Sending you to fight in the Boer War? Huh? The Canadians were volunteers and the UK paid all their expenses. The Canadians asked to go fight.
As for WWI again it was volunteers until Canada voted to conscript itself.
In short: you know damn well that was not the Brits or the figure head monarchy's fault. Don't be that guy.
How many Canadians died in 1914 on the European battlefields?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 16, 2011, 09:55:45 AM
How many Canadians died in 1914 on the European battlefields?
Zero :P
But you know what he means.
Quote from: viper37 on August 16, 2011, 09:51:40 AM
everyone paid for this. Doesn't matter if they are volunteers, a true country does not send it's people fight someone else's colonial wars.
Oh so now Canada sent them? I thought the big bad Brits sent them?
QuoteNeil says monarchy served us well. I am disputing that fact. Afaik, the US did not fight in Britain's colonial wars. That's what it means being independant. You may make mistakes, but they are you own mistakes.
My impression was the Canadians did so as more Britain's allies than as their colonial vassals. I think in WWII the Canadians declared war BEFORE the British did (ok actually not true...not sure where I got that impression from). Besides what does the Monarchy have to do with that? The US and the French used our overseas territories in wars, and we did not even let them vote for it, and neither of us have a monarch.
Quote from: viper37 on August 15, 2011, 08:08:42 PM
Tories to put Royal back in the navy and air force (http://www.thespec.com/news/canada/article/578849--tories-putting-royal-back-in-the-navy-air-force-reports)
Shameful & despicable decision.
Sounds better, regal actually.
Quote from: Neil on August 15, 2011, 08:48:28 PM
At last. How anyone can think that this decision is shameful is beyond me. You live in a constitutional monarchy. If you don't like it, go live in some hellhole like the US or France.
Whatever you say Princess... :lmfao:
Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry
The Princess Louise Fusiliers
The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders of Canada (Princess Louise's)
Looks like the Frogs are pretty well represented.
5e Régiment d'artillerie légère du Canada
Les Fusiliers Mont-Royal
Les Voltigeurs de Québec
12e Régiment blindé du Canada: Is this the 12th Regiment of the blind?
Quote from: viper37 on August 15, 2011, 08:08:42 PM
Shameful & despicable decision.
Does BB have to report you now for High Treason?
The Royal Regina Rifles: ryhmes with Vigina
Well it is the same as Johnny Cash's Boy named Sue, with regimental names like that the troops are bound to be tough bastards :D
The North Saskatchewan Regiment: Canadian Hillbillies??????????
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 16, 2011, 10:34:46 AM
Well it is the same as Johnny Cash's Boy named Sue, with regimental names like that the troops are bound to be tough bastards :D
Good point
Quote from: 11B4V on August 16, 2011, 10:26:26 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 15, 2011, 08:48:28 PM
At last. How anyone can think that this decision is shameful is beyond me. You live in a constitutional monarchy. If you don't like it, go live in some hellhole like the US or France.
Whatever you say Princess... :lmfao:
Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry
The Princess Louise Fusiliers
The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders of Canada (Princess Louise's)
Looks like the Frogs are pretty well represented.
5e Régiment d'artillerie légère du Canada
Les Fusiliers Mont-Royal
Les Voltigeurs de Québec
12e Régiment blindé du Canada: Is this the 12th Regiment of the blind?
Blindé = Panzer iirc
Quote from: Viking on August 16, 2011, 10:36:07 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 16, 2011, 10:26:26 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 15, 2011, 08:48:28 PM
At last. How anyone can think that this decision is shameful is beyond me. You live in a constitutional monarchy. If you don't like it, go live in some hellhole like the US or France.
Whatever you say Princess... :lmfao:
Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry
The Princess Louise Fusiliers
The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders of Canada (Princess Louise's)
Looks like the Frogs are pretty well represented.
5e Régiment d'artillerie légère du Canada
Les Fusiliers Mont-Royal
Les Voltigeurs de Québec
12e Régiment blindé du Canada: Is this the 12th Regiment of the blind?
Blindé = Panzer iirc
Leave it to the French to F-up that.
Quote from: 11B4V on August 16, 2011, 10:41:18 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 16, 2011, 10:36:07 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 16, 2011, 10:26:26 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 15, 2011, 08:48:28 PM
At last. How anyone can think that this decision is shameful is beyond me. You live in a constitutional monarchy. If you don't like it, go live in some hellhole like the US or France.
Whatever you say Princess... :lmfao:
Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry
The Princess Louise Fusiliers
The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders of Canada (Princess Louise's)
Looks like the Frogs are pretty well represented.
5e Régiment d'artillerie légère du Canada
Les Fusiliers Mont-Royal
Les Voltigeurs de Québec
12e Régiment blindé du Canada: Is this the 12th Regiment of the blind?
Blindé = Panzer iirc
Leave it to the French to F-up that.
Canada uses Leopard 2s.
Quote from: Maximus on August 16, 2011, 08:59:20 AM
Forget about the name. The article makes it sound as if they're re-separating the services. If this is the case, what's the rationale behind it?
According to the Admiral of the Royal Canadian Navy (we can finally call it what it is again) interviewed this morning it is a name change.
Quote from: Viking on August 16, 2011, 10:43:41 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 16, 2011, 10:41:18 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 16, 2011, 10:36:07 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 16, 2011, 10:26:26 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 15, 2011, 08:48:28 PM
At last. How anyone can think that this decision is shameful is beyond me. You live in a constitutional monarchy. If you don't like it, go live in some hellhole like the US or France.
Whatever you say Princess... :lmfao:
Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry
The Princess Louise Fusiliers
The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders of Canada (Princess Louise's)
Looks like the Frogs are pretty well represented.
5e Régiment d'artillerie légère du Canada
Les Fusiliers Mont-Royal
Les Voltigeurs de Québec
12e Régiment blindé du Canada: Is this the 12th Regiment of the blind?
Blindé = Panzer iirc
Leave it to the French to F-up that.
Canada uses Leopard 2s.
At least they use a decent tank.
Quote from: 11B4V on August 16, 2011, 10:26:26 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 15, 2011, 08:48:28 PM
At last. How anyone can think that this decision is shameful is beyond me. You live in a constitutional monarchy. If you don't like it, go live in some hellhole like the US or France.
Whatever you say Princess... :lmfao:
Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry
The Princess Louise Fusiliers
The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders of Canada (Princess Louise's)
Looks like the Frogs are pretty well represented.
5e Régiment d'artillerie légère du Canada
Les Fusiliers Mont-Royal
Les Voltigeurs de Québec
12e Régiment blindé du Canada: Is this the 12th Regiment of the blind?
I suppose it is a badge of honour in the US military to show such ignorance.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 16, 2011, 10:46:48 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 16, 2011, 10:26:26 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 15, 2011, 08:48:28 PM
At last. How anyone can think that this decision is shameful is beyond me. You live in a constitutional monarchy. If you don't like it, go live in some hellhole like the US or France.
Whatever you say Princess... :lmfao:
Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry
The Princess Louise Fusiliers
The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders of Canada (Princess Louise's)
Looks like the Frogs are pretty well represented.
5e Régiment d'artillerie légère du Canada
Les Fusiliers Mont-Royal
Les Voltigeurs de Québec
12e Régiment blindé du Canada: Is this the 12th Regiment of the blind?
I suppose it is a badge of honour in the US military to show such ignorance.
Suppose you get the pole out of your ass.
He doesn't do that.
Quote from: 11B4V on August 16, 2011, 10:45:24 AM
At least they use a decent tank.
How would anyone know? It's not it's been used in major combat operations. I think the extent of it's service in combat zones have been low intensity wars like Afghanistan and some peace keeping.
I think I argued that a few years ago. Not disputing your point.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 16, 2011, 10:53:25 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 16, 2011, 10:45:24 AM
At least they use a decent tank.
How would anyone know? It's not it's been used in major combat operations. I think the extent of it's service in combat zones have been low intensity wars like Afghanistan and some peace keeping.
Iirc, we'll soon see if it's useful for running down unarmed protesters.
i support the name change, if only to piss off the french quebecois :)
Quote from: 11B4V on August 16, 2011, 10:26:26 AM
12e Régiment blindé du Canada: Is this the 12th Regiment of the blind?
12th Armoured.
Quote from: viper37 on August 16, 2011, 08:40:57 AM
How did it served us well? By sending us to die in Europe in 1914 to defend the Motherland? By sending us to fight in South Africa to keep the Boers in line? By maintaining a non elected head of state with hereditary titles?
I just don't see how it's a good system, sorry. I'm not singing God Save the Queen every morning either, mind you.
If you have to go back 100 years to find items that you find objectionable, then it can't be all that bad, can it? And even then, most people wouldn't find those wars objectionable.
Besides, a non-elected head of state with hereditary titles is inherently superior to an elected head of state with non-hereditary titles, to say nothing an elected head of state with hereditary titles and a non-elected head of state with non-hereditary titles.
Quote from: viper37 on August 16, 2011, 09:51:40 AM
everyone paid for this. Doesn't matter if they are volunteers, a true country does not send it's people fight someone else's colonial wars.
An honourable country supports their allies when they are right, and Canada has often been an honourable country. You can't just throw around the word 'colonial' as a synonym for 'bad' and expect me to give you a pass on it. I'm not some left-wing punk.
QuoteUntil the government who promised not to use conscription decided it was a good idea. And again, it was to fight a colonial war.
The CANADIAN government. Not the British one. And if you consider our involvement in the Great War to be a colonial war, then you've stretched the term past the point where it has any meaning, except of course as a synonym for 'bad' amongst left-wing punks.
Quote
Neil says monarchy served us well. I am disputing that fact. Afaik, the US did not fight in Britain's colonial wars. That's what it means being independant. You may make mistakes, but they are you own mistakes.
That's like leaving home for the first time. Of course, being at home with mom&dad has benefits. More so than living alone the first few years. but over time, who would willingly go back to mommy & daddy?
You're trying to bring up points from a century ago, which is completely unconvincing. You should use more recent examples.
And you tried to define the Great War as a 'colonial war', but the US was involved there. Are you sure that the US isn't actually a British colony? The Crown is a valuable part of our heritage, and not to be diminished lightly or discarded, ever.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 16, 2011, 11:24:33 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 16, 2011, 10:53:25 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 16, 2011, 10:45:24 AM
At least they use a decent tank.
How would anyone know? It's not it's been used in major combat operations. I think the extent of it's service in combat zones have been low intensity wars like Afghanistan and some peace keeping.
Iirc, we'll soon see if it's useful for running down unarmed protesters.
The Israelis do that with just an armored bulldozer.
Quote from: The Brain on August 16, 2011, 10:51:28 AM
He doesn't do that.
You're saying it's permanently emplanted, then?
Quote from: 11B4V on August 16, 2011, 10:26:26 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 15, 2011, 08:48:28 PM
At last. How anyone can think that this decision is shameful is beyond me. You live in a constitutional monarchy. If you don't like it, go live in some hellhole like the US or France.
Whatever you say Princess... :lmfao:
Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry
The Princess Louise Fusiliers
The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders of Canada (Princess Louise's)
Looks like the Frogs are pretty well represented.
5e Régiment d'artillerie légère du Canada
Les Fusiliers Mont-Royal
Les Voltigeurs de Québec
12e Régiment blindé du Canada: Is this the 12th Regiment of the blind?
Other than the Princess Pats, I think those are all reserve units that really only exist on paper...
Quote from: Ideologue on August 16, 2011, 11:24:33 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 16, 2011, 10:53:25 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 16, 2011, 10:45:24 AM
At least they use a decent tank.
How would anyone know? It's not it's been used in major combat operations. I think the extent of it's service in combat zones have been low intensity wars like Afghanistan and some peace keeping.
Iirc, we'll soon see if it's useful for running down unarmed protesters.
Should be
What did the Crown do for Canada to deserve Canadians fighting in the Boer War, WWI and WWII? (Naturally the rightness of killing raciss Boers, autocratic Germans and well Nazis should make those gimmes, but there was a request for info on the Crown's contributions to Canada)
1 - Liberating Canada from France and thus avoiding the horror of being a former French Colony rather than pleasure of being a former British Colony
2 - Defending Canada from US invasion and thus avoid the horror of being associated with the Texans rather than the pleasure of being able to be Canadian when the US is pissing off the world
The UK and the Dominions were effectively in an alliance, all for one and one for all. So yes, it usually involved the Dominions helping Britain out. But, on the other hand, if any country had fancied attacking one of the Dominions then they would have had to fight the UK and the other Dominions as well.
It's good to finally reverse such ideologically-motivated decisions. The names also sound a lot better.
Quote from: Viking on August 17, 2011, 04:28:47 AM
2 - Defending Canada from US invasion and thus avoid the horror of being associated with the Texans rather than the pleasure of being able to be Canadian when the US is pissing off the world
I am glad somebody else loves Rick Perry as much as I do.
Viking has weird ideas about how large, rich countries should care what the world thinks about their political leaders.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 16, 2011, 09:55:45 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 16, 2011, 09:36:46 AM
Quote from: viper37 on August 16, 2011, 08:40:57 AM
How did it served us well? By sending us to die in Europe in 1914 to defend the Motherland? By sending us to fight in South Africa to keep the Boers in line?
Sending you to fight in the Boer War? Huh? The Canadians were volunteers and the UK paid all their expenses. The Canadians asked to go fight.
As for WWI again it was volunteers until Canada voted to conscript itself.
In short: you know damn well that was not the Brits or the figure head monarchy's fault. Don't be that guy.
How many Canadians died in 1914 on the European battlefields?
67,000 dead and 149 000 wounded.
Canada was not independant, but it was a country with its own army, nonetheless. Except for Newfoundland.
Quote from: viper37 on August 17, 2011, 08:44:35 AM
67,000 dead and 149 000 wounded.
Canada was not independant, but it was a country with its own army, nonetheless. Except for Newfoundland.
*whoosh*
Quote from: Valmy on August 16, 2011, 10:12:28 AM
Oh so now Canada sent them? I thought the big bad Brits sent them?
Canada had no choice, being a colony. Either we sent them volunteers, or they would be recruited by force. That was a compromise by Laurier to appease the British.
QuoteMy impression was the Canadians did so as more Britain's allies than as their colonial vassals. I think in WWII the Canadians declared war BEFORE the British did (ok actually not true...not sure where I got that impression from). Besides what does the Monarchy have to do with that? The US and the French used our overseas territories in wars, and we did not even let them vote for it, and neither of us have a monarch.
The Republic eventually let go of their colonies (after bloody wars, yes). I don't see Tunisia or Algeria naming their army "Régiment de France-Afrique". They're no longer colonies.
Canada is no longer a colony, and this is a step backward.
Quote from: Neil on August 16, 2011, 06:12:17 PM
An honourable country supports their allies when they are right, and Canada has often been an honourable country. You can't just throw around the word 'colonial' as a synonym for 'bad' and expect me to give you a pass on it. I'm not some left-wing punk.
if you were in trouble, your friends would probably help you, even if you put yourself in trouble.
If you were a boss in the Italian mafia, your friends would probably help you too.
But there's a difference between the two, one of them has really no choice in the matter.
Quote from: viper37 on August 17, 2011, 08:54:52 AM
The Republic eventually let go of their colonies (after bloody wars, yes). I don't see Tunisia or Algeria naming their army "Régiment de France-Afrique". They're no longer colonies.
Canada is no longer a colony, and this is a step backward.
Canada is no longer a colony, but she is, however, still a Monarchy.
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.or/wiki/CanadaGovernment Federal parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy[4]
- Monarch Elizabeth II
- Governor General David Johnston
- Prime Minister Stephen Harper
Quote from: viper37 on August 17, 2011, 08:54:52 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 16, 2011, 10:12:28 AM
Oh so now Canada sent them? I thought the big bad Brits sent them?
Canada had no choice, being a colony. Either we sent them volunteers, or they would be recruited by force. That was a compromise by Laurier to appease the British.
Anglo-Canadians were in favor of helping the British and Laurier's decision was to appease THEM.
QuoteQuoteMy impression was the Canadians did so as more Britain's allies than as their colonial vassals. I think in WWII the Canadians declared war BEFORE the British did (ok actually not true...not sure where I got that impression from). Besides what does the Monarchy have to do with that? The US and the French used our overseas territories in wars, and we did not even let them vote for it, and neither of us have a monarch.
The Republic eventually let go of their colonies (after bloody wars, yes). I don't see Tunisia or Algeria naming their army "Régiment de France-Afrique". They're no longer colonies.
Canada is no longer a colony, and this is a step backward.
Oh for fucksake. I don't see Canada naming their army 'The Yorkshire Fusiliers' either. Anyway Algeria in particular has names for their units that reflect their former relationship with France unless you think 'Gendarmerie nationale' is an Arabic term.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 17, 2011, 04:41:34 AM
The UK and the Dominions were effectively in an alliance, all for one and one for all. So yes, it usually involved the Dominions helping Britain out. But, on the other hand, if any country had fancied attacking one of the Dominions then they would have had to fight the UK and the other Dominions as well.
I think this important to note. If the British weren't ready to defend Canada, the US probably would have picked it up sometime in the 19th century. I mean, the US invaded it in two separate wars.
You know what's weird? Turns out "arsenal" is an Arabic term.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 17, 2011, 09:16:27 AM
You know what's weird? Turns out "arsenal" is an Arabic term.
No wonder they pimp Emirates Airlines.
I'd thought it had something to do with how fire is apparently somewhat related to arson, so weapons which deliberately cause fires = "arsonal." -_-
Quote from: Valmy on August 17, 2011, 09:20:33 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 17, 2011, 09:16:27 AM
You know what's weird? Turns out "arsenal" is an Arabic term.
No wonder they pimp Emirates Airlines.
No wonder the Yid army hates their guts... apart from both being in north london then... ;)
The original arsenal being the one in Venice of course.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 17, 2011, 09:23:08 AM
I'd thought it had something to do with how fire is apparently somewhat related to arson, so weapons which deliberate cause fires = "arsonal." -_-
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=arsenal
from dar as-sina'ah or house of manufacture
arson has a latin root
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=arson
Quote from: Viking on August 17, 2011, 09:26:42 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 17, 2011, 09:23:08 AM
I'd thought it had something to do with how fire is apparently somewhat related to arson, so weapons which deliberate cause fires = "arsonal." -_-
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=arsenal
from dar as-sina'ah or house of manufacture
arson has a latin root
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=arson
Huh, I always figured it was from "ars" an Indo-European root for fitting to together. We get the words Art, artisan, and arms from that. Possibly the gods Ares and Mars and the national names Iran and Aryan.
I R: Surprised.
Quote from: Viking on August 17, 2011, 09:02:19 AM
Canada is no longer a colony, but she is, however, still a Monarchy.
with a foreign Monarch, from wich we should seek to distance ourself. You can't be truly independant if your head of state is foreign. I now understand better why English Canadians see Quebec's independance with such a bad idea. They themselves can't get over the fact that Canada is a seperate nation from England and need to re-assess their attachment to the crown at every opportunity. For fuck sake, what's next? The Royal Post Corporation? The Royal Canadian National Bank?
If the Canadian army corps can't existe without reminding everyone that they are really the Queen's army, might as well not have a distinct army and merge it back with the British Empire. They have that military tradition wich seem so important (curious that no soldier ever talked about it when you asked them what kind of problems they face or what they need to be done differently).
I'm pretty sure all those veterans without pension or without decent care will feel better now that they are part of the Royal army :)
I mean, how can it not solve all the problems the Canadian Armed Forces faces? They will have tradition now :) They will be anchored to the past and everyone will be constantly reminded we are still a British Colony, a part of their mighty Empire, governed by a foreign ruler.
I believe a country should look to the future, not constantly look at the past. I tought the Conservatives clearly understood that, but it seems they really don't grasp something that simple.
Quote from: viper37 on August 17, 2011, 12:30:28 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 17, 2011, 09:02:19 AM
Canada is no longer a colony, but she is, however, still a Monarchy.
with a foreign Monarch, from wich we should seek to distance ourself. You can't be truly independant if your head of state is foreign. I now understand better why English Canadians see Quebec's independance with such a bad idea. They themselves can't get over the fact that Canada is a seperate nation from England and need to re-assess their attachment to the crown at every opportunity. For fuck sake, what's next? The Royal Post Corporation? The Royal Canadian National Bank?
If the Canadian army corps can't existe without reminding everyone that they are really the Queen's army, might as well not have a distinct army and merge it back with the British Empire. They have that military tradition wich seem so important (curious that no soldier ever talked about it when you asked them what kind of problems they face or what they need to be done differently).
I'm pretty sure all those veterans without pension or without decent care will feel better now that they are part of the Royal army :)
I mean, how can it not solve all the problems the Canadian Armed Forces faces? They will have tradition now :) They will be anchored to the past and everyone will be constantly reminded we are still a British Colony, a part of their mighty Empire, governed by a foreign ruler.
I believe a country should look to the future, not constantly look at the past. I tought the Conservatives clearly understood that, but it seems they really don't grasp something that simple.
The vast majority of English Canadians could not give a toss either way. Though this one finds the over-the-top hysteria on the issue amusing. :D
Quote from: viper37 on August 17, 2011, 12:30:28 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 17, 2011, 09:02:19 AM
Canada is no longer a colony, but she is, however, still a Monarchy.
with a foreign Monarch, from wich we should seek to distance ourself. You can't be truly independant if your head of state is foreign. I now understand better why English Canadians see Quebec's independance with such a bad idea. They themselves can't get over the fact that Canada is a seperate nation from England and need to re-assess their attachment to the crown at every opportunity. For fuck sake, what's next? The Royal Post Corporation? The Royal Canadian National Bank?
If the Canadian army corps can't existe without reminding everyone that they are really the Queen's army, might as well not have a distinct army and merge it back with the British Empire. They have that military tradition wich seem so important (curious that no soldier ever talked about it when you asked them what kind of problems they face or what they need to be done differently).
I'm pretty sure all those veterans without pension or without decent care will feel better now that they are part of the Royal army :)
I mean, how can it not solve all the problems the Canadian Armed Forces faces? They will have tradition now :) They will be anchored to the past and everyone will be constantly reminded we are still a British Colony, a part of their mighty Empire, governed by a foreign ruler.
I believe a country should look to the future, not constantly look at the past. I tought the Conservatives clearly understood that, but it seems they really don't grasp something that simple.
To misquote Hume, you can't get an "is" from a "should". Canada is a Monarchy and it is consistent with all other monarchies to give the armed forces fancy royal names. If you are against the monarchy you should oppose the monarchy. I can't, however, consider it disingenuous to argue against making the monarchy as good and effective as possible given that you have one. I think you should agree with me, as a fellow republican living in a monarchy, that a well run monarchy that uses it's advantages is better than a badly run monarchy that pretends it's not there. As a democrat you should accept the fact, and it is a fact, that the monarchy retains democratic legitimacy as the system of government in Canada.
I am a republican. I do however see that there are some advantages to Monarchy, though, obviously on the whole I think the benefits of a good Republic far outweigh the benefits of a good Monarchy. These advantages include the humbling of professional politicians and the ability to take advantage of traditions in military and administration (where the politicians choose not to "reform" them). I think that putting "Royal" in front of the names of the military branches not only remind the soldiers but also the politicians that the military is not a plaything of government, but rather an institution of the "crown" (that is to say the country).
Quote from: viper37 on August 17, 2011, 12:30:28 PM
You can't be truly independant if your head of state is foreign.
Why not?
Seems to me we have the best of both worlds - we have the tradition and stability that the monarchy brings, without having to actually pay for it. :)
Queens german anyway.
Worse yet - she's married to a Greek. :o
Quote from: Barrister on August 17, 2011, 01:35:05 PM
Worse yet - she's married to a Greek. :o
i try to forget that cause he's cool. damn you!
Quote from: HVC on August 17, 2011, 01:30:50 PM
Queens german anyway.
She is as British as Queen Victoria!
Quote from: Valmy on August 17, 2011, 01:36:23 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 17, 2011, 01:30:50 PM
Queens german anyway.
She is as British as Queen Victoria!
Given that the Queen Mum is Scottish, I'm pretty sure that QE2 is much more British (but no more English) than Vicky.
Quote from: HVC on August 17, 2011, 01:36:03 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 17, 2011, 01:35:05 PM
Worse yet - she's married to a Greek. :o
i try to forget that cause he's cool. damn you!
He's not *really* that Greek at all. Yes, he was born in Greece, but his formative years were not spent there.
Man when all these people find out their monarches are foreigners they're going to be pissed.
Quote from: Palisadoes on August 17, 2011, 01:40:54 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 17, 2011, 01:36:03 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 17, 2011, 01:35:05 PM
Worse yet - she's married to a Greek. :o
i try to forget that cause he's cool. damn you!
He's not *really* that Greek at all. Yes, he was born in Greece, but his formative years were not spent there.
Killjoy. :rolleyes:
He's more Greek than Liz is German.
Wasn't the Greek royal family German?
Quote from: Maximus on August 17, 2011, 01:53:00 PM
Wasn't the Greek royal family German?
Yep. The Germans had so many royal families that royals used to be one of their chief exports.
Quote from: Maximus on August 17, 2011, 01:53:00 PM
Wasn't the Greek royal family German?
German by way of Denmark, it appears. I've been reading wiki on the topic after I brought it up.
Quote from: Viking on August 17, 2011, 01:40:18 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 17, 2011, 01:36:23 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 17, 2011, 01:30:50 PM
Queens german anyway.
She is as British as Queen Victoria!
Given that the Queen Mum is Scottish, I'm pretty sure that QE2 is much more British (but no more English) than Vicky.
Blackadder reference:
"I am not a German spy! I'm as British as Queen Victoria!"
"Aha so you admit that your father's German, you're half German, and you married a German!"
Quote from: Barrister on August 17, 2011, 01:19:01 PM
Why not?
How many countries in the world, outside of the Commonwealth have an out of country head of state?
Quote
Seems to me we have the best of both worlds - we have the tradition and stability that the monarchy brings, without having to actually pay for it. :)
you do pay for it. You pay for a non-elected head of state and its office. and you pay for any trip the Royal family makes in your country, be they official of the country or not. We have to maintain a residence and a permanent staff in some provinces:
To assist the Queen in carrying out her official duties on behalf of Canada, she appoints various people to her Canadian household. Along with the Canadian Secretary to the Queen,[176] the monarch's entourage includes two ladies-in-waiting, the Canadian Equerry-in-Waiting to the Queen, the Queen's Police Officer, the Duke of Edinburgh's Police Officer,[237] the Queen's Honorary Physician, the Queen's Honorary Dental Surgeon, and the Queen's Honorary Nursing Officer[238] — the latter three being drawn from the Canadian Forces.[66] There are also three household regiments specifically attached to the Royal Household (the Governor General's Foot Guards, the Governor General's Horse Guards, and the Canadian Grenadier Guards), as well as two chapels royal in Ontario.[239]The only thing we don't pay is their annual pension from the British. I suppose in the past, pre-Westminster, there was a part of our revenues dedicated to that.
@Valmy:
I would prefer a republican system where the elected chief of state costs more than a non elected monarch whose aptitude to leadership is determined by birth. I don't like Elizabeth II, and I'm stuck with her for as long as she lives. Same goes for Charles, and I don't get to chose if William ascend to the throne or not. Imagine is G.W. Bush was still your President until he dies.
Quote from: viper37 on August 17, 2011, 02:21:48 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 17, 2011, 01:19:01 PM
Why not?
How many countries in the world, outside of the Commonwealth have an out of country head of state?
Quote
Seems to me we have the best of both worlds - we have the tradition and stability that the monarchy brings, without having to actually pay for it. :)
you do pay for it. You pay for a non-elected head of state and its office. and you pay for any trip the Royal family makes in your country, be they official of the country or not. We have to maintain a residence and a permanent staff in some provinces:
To assist the Queen in carrying out her official duties on behalf of Canada, she appoints various people to her Canadian household. Along with the Canadian Secretary to the Queen,[176] the monarch's entourage includes two ladies-in-waiting, the Canadian Equerry-in-Waiting to the Queen, the Queen's Police Officer, the Duke of Edinburgh's Police Officer,[237] the Queen's Honorary Physician, the Queen's Honorary Dental Surgeon, and the Queen's Honorary Nursing Officer[238] — the latter three being drawn from the Canadian Forces.[66] There are also three household regiments specifically attached to the Royal Household (the Governor General's Foot Guards, the Governor General's Horse Guards, and the Canadian Grenadier Guards), as well as two chapels royal in Ontario.[239]
The only thing we don't pay is their annual pension from the British. I suppose in the past, pre-Westminster, there was a part of our revenues dedicated to that.
@Valmy:
I would prefer a republican system where the elected chief of state costs more than a non elected monarch whose aptitude to leadership is determined by birth. I don't like Elizabeth II, and I'm stuck with her for as long as she lives. Same goes for Charles, and I don't get to chose if William ascend to the throne or not. Imagine is G.W. Bush was still your President until he dies.
If all Bush did was cut ribbons, appear in gossip mags, and have his schnozz on the coinage, what's the harm?
Quote from: viper37 on August 17, 2011, 02:21:48 PM
@Valmy:
I would prefer a republican system where the elected chief of state costs more than a non elected monarch whose aptitude to leadership is determined by birth. I don't like Elizabeth II, and I'm stuck with her for as long as she lives. Same goes for Charles, and I don't get to chose if William ascend to the throne or not. Imagine is G.W. Bush was still your President until he dies.
Queen and king to be make no decisions, so it's not fair to campare them to a president for life. and what's not like about the queen? Besides the fact you don't wanta queen :lol:
Quote from: HVC on August 17, 2011, 01:42:33 PM
Man when all these people find out their monarches are foreigners they're going to be pissed.
Germans and English are the same.
Germans colonized England, and once the English achieved sufficient distinction from the French & the Germans they tought it be cool to renew with their roots so they imported one King from near the old Fatherland.
Quote from: viper37 on August 17, 2011, 02:27:37 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 17, 2011, 01:42:33 PM
Man when all these people find out their monarches are foreigners they're going to be pissed.
Germans and English are the same.
Germans colonized England (why the name, hey? ;) ), and once they achieve sufficient distinction from the French & the Germans they tought it be cool to renew with their roots so they imported one from near the old Fatherland.
by that distinction canadians are brits so the queen's cool again :D
Quote from: viper37 on August 17, 2011, 02:21:48 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 17, 2011, 01:19:01 PM
Why not?
How many countries in the world, outside of the Commonwealth have an out of country head of state?
Quote
Seems to me we have the best of both worlds - we have the tradition and stability that the monarchy brings, without having to actually pay for it. :)
you do pay for it. You pay for a non-elected head of state and its office. and you pay for any trip the Royal family makes in your country, be they official of the country or not. We have to maintain a residence and a permanent staff in some provinces:
To assist the Queen in carrying out her official duties on behalf of Canada, she appoints various people to her Canadian household. Along with the Canadian Secretary to the Queen,[176] the monarch's entourage includes two ladies-in-waiting, the Canadian Equerry-in-Waiting to the Queen, the Queen's Police Officer, the Duke of Edinburgh's Police Officer,[237] the Queen's Honorary Physician, the Queen's Honorary Dental Surgeon, and the Queen's Honorary Nursing Officer[238] — the latter three being drawn from the Canadian Forces.[66] There are also three household regiments specifically attached to the Royal Household (the Governor General's Foot Guards, the Governor General's Horse Guards, and the Canadian Grenadier Guards), as well as two chapels royal in Ontario.[239]
The only thing we don't pay is their annual pension from the British. I suppose in the past, pre-Westminster, there was a part of our revenues dedicated to that.
We pay for their visits (which we'd do anyways, same as the US pays for their visits to the US), then we give a bunch of people some honourary titles that don't cost us anything. Sounds real expensive! :lol:
I'm starting to think we should give people from Quebec something real to complain about - make Celine Dion honorary queen of Quebec. :D
Quote from: HVC on August 17, 2011, 02:28:52 PM
by that distinction canadians are brits so the queen's cool again :D
I suppose many still see themselves as the heir to the British Empire. Disapointing.
Quote from: viper37 on August 17, 2011, 02:21:48 PM
@Valmy:
I would prefer a republican system where the elected chief of state costs more than a non elected monarch whose aptitude to leadership is determined by birth. I don't like Elizabeth II, and I'm stuck with her for as long as she lives. Same goes for Charles, and I don't get to chose if William ascend to the throne or not. Imagine is G.W. Bush was still your President until he dies.
G. W. Bush would be a great head of state with no power. He is a natural upper class Texan who loves golf and shaking hands and giving tearful speaches all that. What he sucked at was, you know, actually governing which is why he was a fine Texas Governor but a shitty President. The Queen of Canada is not comparable to the President of the United States. Your actual leader is the Prime Minister. The Queen is as relevent to the governance of Canada as the Bald Eagle is to the governance of the US.
Quote from: Barrister on August 17, 2011, 02:29:05 PM
We pay for their visits (which we'd do anyways, same as the US pays for their visits to the US), then we give a bunch of people some honourary titles that don't cost us anything. Sounds real expensive! :lol:
If Obama's daughter decided to visit us with her boyfriend, we wouldn't pay for her expense. Nor are we required to maintain permanent staff at their disposal, or at Obama's disposal. Nor do we pay for a visit by Obama's brother/sister/cousin. And if he was old enough to have grand child, I don't see ourselves paying for their trip.
Sorry, better luck next time my royalist friend :alberta:
Quote from: Valmy on August 17, 2011, 02:32:52 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 17, 2011, 02:21:48 PM
@Valmy:
I would prefer a republican system where the elected chief of state costs more than a non elected monarch whose aptitude to leadership is determined by birth. I don't like Elizabeth II, and I'm stuck with her for as long as she lives. Same goes for Charles, and I don't get to chose if William ascend to the throne or not. Imagine is G.W. Bush was still your President until he dies.
G. W. Bush would be a great head of state with no power. He is a natural upper class Texan who loves golf and shaking hands and giving tearful speaches all that. What he sucked at was, you know, actually governing which is why he was a fine Texas Governor but a shitty President. The Queen of Canada is not comparable to the President of the United States. Your actual leader is the Prime Minister. The Queen is as relevent to the governance of Canada as the Bald Eagle is to the governance of the US.
I think you're right. W would've made an awesome monarch (or Governor General).
Quote from: Malthus on August 17, 2011, 02:30:34 PM
I'm starting to think we should give people from Quebec something real to complain about - make Celine Dion honorary queen of Quebec. :D
CD as GG?
hmmm....
Quote from: viper37 on August 17, 2011, 02:33:33 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 17, 2011, 02:29:05 PM
We pay for their visits (which we'd do anyways, same as the US pays for their visits to the US), then we give a bunch of people some honourary titles that don't cost us anything. Sounds real expensive! :lol:
If Obama's daughter decided to visit us with her boyfriend, we wouldn't pay for her expense. Nor are we required to maintain permanent staff at their disposal, or at Obama's disposal. Nor do we pay for a visit by Obama's brother/sister/cousin. And if he was old enough to have grand child, I don't see ourselves paying for their trip.
Sorry, better luck next time my royalist friend :alberta:
We're not obligated to pay for Will and Kate's visit either. Instead we offered - because it is a huge tourist draw. It's a win-win for us to have Royals visit the country. And they don't visit unless they're invited anyways.
And those positions you named are honourary positions - aka we don't pay anything for them.
:showoff:
Quote from: viper37 on August 17, 2011, 02:33:33 PM
If Obama's daughter decided to visit us with her boyfriend, we wouldn't pay for her expense. Nor are we required to maintain permanent staff at their disposal, or at Obama's disposal. Nor do we pay for a visit by Obama's brother/sister/cousin. And if he was old enough to have grand child, I don't see ourselves paying for their trip.
Sorry, better luck next time my royalist friend :alberta:
Um Obama is not your head of state. He is ours. And guess what? We pay money for secret service protection and so for for his family and we will continue to do so for the rest of his life and pay for him to attend government functions after he is President and have done so for all past Presidents for awhile now. I bet that costs more than having some Prince stop by once a generation. Ex-Presidents and their families are American Royals.
Quote from: Valmy on August 17, 2011, 02:32:52 PM
G. W. Bush would be a great head of state with no power. He is a natural upper class Texan who loves golf and shaking hands and giving tearful speaches all that. What he sucked at was, you know, actually governing which is why he was a fine Texas Governor but a shitty President. The Queen of Canada is not comparable to the President of the United States. Your actual leader is the Prime Minister. The Queen is as relevent to the governance of Canada as the Bald Eagle is to the governance of the US.
True, the head of state position are totally different. One is mostly symbolic, the other hold real power. But Bush could easily made diplomatic blunder. Or he could generate hostility from foreign countries, for various reason. Or he could go borderline senile and you'd still be stuck with him receiving foreign dignataries.
We should just vote for the PM directly and have him as head of state&government. With some minor adjustments, it could work.
Quote from: viper37 on August 17, 2011, 02:38:20 PM
We should just vote for the PM directly and have him as head of state&government. With some minor adjustments, it could work.
It could easily work. The first step to getting 'Royal' taken out of the Canadian lexicon is to stop being a monarchy :P
Quote from: Valmy on August 17, 2011, 02:40:37 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 17, 2011, 02:38:20 PM
We should just vote for the PM directly and have him as head of state&government. With some minor adjustments, it could work.
It could easily work. The first step to getting 'Royal' taken out of the Canadian lexicon is to stop being a monarchy :P
I agree. I support a Republic of Canada.
More importantly I support Canada in whatever choice they make and hope the get the best out the system they do choose.
Quote from: viper37 on August 17, 2011, 02:38:20 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 17, 2011, 02:32:52 PM
G. W. Bush would be a great head of state with no power. He is a natural upper class Texan who loves golf and shaking hands and giving tearful speaches all that. What he sucked at was, you know, actually governing which is why he was a fine Texas Governor but a shitty President. The Queen of Canada is not comparable to the President of the United States. Your actual leader is the Prime Minister. The Queen is as relevent to the governance of Canada as the Bald Eagle is to the governance of the US.
True, the head of state position are totally different. One is mostly symbolic, the other hold real power. But Bush could easily made diplomatic blunder. Or he could generate hostility from foreign countries, for various reason. Or he could go borderline senile and you'd still be stuck with him receiving foreign dignataries.
We should just vote for the PM directly and have him as head of state&government. With some minor adjustments, it could work.
No - we'd still need someone in the position as head of state. Remember it was only a few years ago when the GG was actually in an important position regarding whether or not to prorogue Parliament.
Quote from: Valmy on August 17, 2011, 02:38:11 PM
Um Obama is not your head of state. He is ours. And guess what? We pay money for secret service protection and so for for his family and we will continue to do so for the rest of his life and pay for him to attend government functions after he is President and have done so for all past Presidents for awhile now. I bet that costs less than having some Prince stop by once a generation.
As I said, Obama is elected. The Queen is not. I don't get to decide if Charles is fit enough to rule as my head of state, no matter if the officiale functions are relatively small. It's been determined before I was born that he would be the one to take the throne once his mother dies. And after him will be William.
Why? Because someone somewhere decided he had an impressive resume? Because after multiple interviews, the Prime Minister of Canada and the cabinet decided he was ok enough to fill the role of head of state? Because we voted for him thinking he was the best?
Nope. Because he was first male born of a family living in a foreign country.
This is, in essence, what it is to be a colony. You don't decide who rules you. You might get a good ruler, you might not. But you don't decide. and nobody you voted for will decide on your behalf who is best fit for the job, it's all pre-determined by birth.
If it was a Canadian monarch, I could, maybe, live with it. It would be a political system like any other. It would be like adopting the Euro or the US dollar as a currency. You stop having choice, but at least you make that choice once.
But a foreign ruler? Nah. It's stinks of colonial times and we should do everything to look at the future, not the past.
Quote from: viper37 on August 17, 2011, 02:47:36 PM
As I said, Obama is elected. The Queen is not.
His wife and kids weren't. Which was my point.
And as I said I do not really care about whether symbolic offices, like the Queen, are elected. I mean what would be the campaign or qualifications for figure head? Would you promise to look better on the currency?
But you, and I expect most Quebeckers, find the symbol itself to be offensive and that is why you want a republic would be my guess.
My advice is to come up with a positive alternative that the Canadian people are likely to support in a referendum. It's easy to slag off the constitutional monarchy, it is indeed rather peculiar, but you need to come up with a superior alternative instead of just grumbling.
Quote from: Barrister on August 17, 2011, 02:42:36 PM
No - we'd still need someone in the position as head of state. Remember it was only a few years ago when the GG was actually in an important position regarding whether or not to prorogue Parliament.
The GG really had no power. Had the Prime Minister felt she wouldn't side with him, he would have replaced her immediatly with someone more inclined to his views, then he would have asked to prorogue the Parliament.
The GG would have had to agree or make a stand and create chaos. She would have folded.
Really, the Governor does not hold any kind of power. It can't even govern by decree in the case of a disbanded government, unlike the cabinet.
It could, theoritically, refuse to sign a bill.
In practice, the Cabinet would remove the Governor General and replace it with someone else.
Quote from: Valmy on August 17, 2011, 02:49:23 PM
His wife and kids weren't. Which was my point.
And as I said I do not really care about whether symbolic offices, like the Queen, are elected. I mean what would be the campaign or qualifications for figure head? Would you promise to look better on the currency?
What are the qualifications required of the German President?
Quote
But you, and I expect most Quebeckers, find the symbol itself to be offensive and that is why you want a republic would be my guess.
True enough, but it's only part of the reasons even if it's a big one.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 17, 2011, 02:51:32 PM
My advice is to come up with a positive alternative that the Canadian people are likely to support in a referendum. It's easy to slag off the constitutional monarchy, it is indeed rather peculiar, but you need to come up with a superior alternative instead of just grumbling.
look at how populare this new initiative is in English Canada, and you'll get your answer why it's not done.
Canadians are attached to their old British tradition, something like the fear of becoming American if they don't have a King or Queen.
Even the Australian couldn't manage to get rid of the Commonwealth when they tried. We'll let them to the trial&errors phase, then we'll copy what they did right :P
Quote from: viper37 on August 17, 2011, 02:55:04 PM
What are the qualifications required of the German President?
The German President is almost completely identical to your Governor General so why don't you tell me? Why are the requirements for being Governor General?
Quote from: Valmy on August 17, 2011, 02:40:37 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 17, 2011, 02:38:20 PM
We should just vote for the PM directly and have him as head of state&government. With some minor adjustments, it could work.
It could easily work. The first step to getting 'Royal' taken out of the Canadian lexicon is to stop being a monarchy :P
but that adds a new layer of costs in addition to the head of state costs. so really, we're getting off cheap with just a queen of canada :D
Quote from: Barrister on August 17, 2011, 02:42:36 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 17, 2011, 02:38:20 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 17, 2011, 02:32:52 PM
G. W. Bush would be a great head of state with no power. He is a natural upper class Texan who loves golf and shaking hands and giving tearful speaches all that. What he sucked at was, you know, actually governing which is why he was a fine Texas Governor but a shitty President. The Queen of Canada is not comparable to the President of the United States. Your actual leader is the Prime Minister. The Queen is as relevent to the governance of Canada as the Bald Eagle is to the governance of the US.
True, the head of state position are totally different. One is mostly symbolic, the other hold real power. But Bush could easily made diplomatic blunder. Or he could generate hostility from foreign countries, for various reason. Or he could go borderline senile and you'd still be stuck with him receiving foreign dignataries.
We should just vote for the PM directly and have him as head of state&government. With some minor adjustments, it could work.
No - we'd still need someone in the position as head of state. Remember it was only a few years ago when the GG was actually in an important position regarding whether or not to prorogue Parliament.
and she made the wrong choice. you're not winning the arguement to not get rid of a figurehead :P
Quote from: viper37 on August 17, 2011, 02:53:38 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 17, 2011, 02:42:36 PM
No - we'd still need someone in the position as head of state. Remember it was only a few years ago when the GG was actually in an important position regarding whether or not to prorogue Parliament.
The GG really had no power. Had the Prime Minister felt she wouldn't side with him, he would have replaced her immediatly with someone more inclined to his views, then he would have asked to prorogue the Parliament.
The GG would have had to agree or make a stand and create chaos. She would have folded.
Really, the Governor does not hold any kind of power. It can't even govern by decree in the case of a disbanded government, unlike the cabinet.
It could, theoritically, refuse to sign a bill.
In practice, the Cabinet would remove the Governor General and replace it with someone else.
:huh:
The PM has absolutely no ability to fire the GG. And there is historical precedent for the GG refusing a PM's request - the infamous King-Byng affair.
Quote from: Barrister on August 17, 2011, 03:21:27 PM
The PM has absolutely no ability to fire the GG. And there is historical precedent for the GG refusing a PM's request - the infamous King-Byng affair.
i read that as burger - king affair. carry on.
Quote from: viper37 on August 17, 2011, 02:53:38 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 17, 2011, 02:42:36 PM
No - we'd still need someone in the position as head of state. Remember it was only a few years ago when the GG was actually in an important position regarding whether or not to prorogue Parliament.
The GG really had no power. Had the Prime Minister felt she wouldn't side with him, he would have replaced her immediatly with someone more inclined to his views, then he would have asked to prorogue the Parliament.
The GG would have had to agree or make a stand and create chaos. She would have folded.
Really, the Governor does not hold any kind of power. It can't even govern by decree in the case of a disbanded government, unlike the cabinet.
It could, theoritically, refuse to sign a bill.
In practice, the Cabinet would remove the Governor General and replace it with someone else.
But you're contradicting yourself when you go on about being
ruled by a foreign Queen.
The Queen doesn't rule us - she (and her representative) have no power to rule us.
What the monarch (and the GG) do have is essentially a tie-breaker function when any number of very unlikely scenarios come about after an election, and there's some doubt about who should form government. In those situations, it is important to have a neutral tie-breaker. Having that be a hereditary position works just as well as any other system, plus has the benefit of not actually needing to change anything to make it happen.
In Canada we're so allergic to Constitutional change that NOT having to change the constitution is an important consideration.
Quote from: viper37 on August 17, 2011, 02:30:57 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 17, 2011, 02:28:52 PM
by that distinction canadians are brits so the queen's cool again :D
I suppose many still see themselves as the heir to the British Empire. Disapointing.
Man that would be cool if we inherited the British empire.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 17, 2011, 04:09:52 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 17, 2011, 02:30:57 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 17, 2011, 02:28:52 PM
by that distinction canadians are brits so the queen's cool again :D
I suppose many still see themselves as the heir to the British Empire. Disapointing.
Man that would be cool if we inherited the British empire.
Owning India and half of Africa?
Pass.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 17, 2011, 02:51:32 PM
My advice is to come up with a positive alternative that the Canadian people are likely to support in a referendum. It's easy to slag off the constitutional monarchy, it is indeed rather peculiar, but you need to come up with a superior alternative instead of just grumbling.
I am pretty sure the majority of Canadians support the current structure of our Government. Especially since the Republican model is currently being displayed in a very poor light. The kind of budgetary standoff you are experiencing cannot occur under our system. Either the Budget is passed or the government falls. Simple as that.
Quote from: Barrister on August 17, 2011, 04:11:28 PM
Owning India and half of Africa?
Owning India (a larger economy then ours by a long shot) would more than pay for Africa - which we could give away at our leisure. Its the damn Aussies I would want to jettison asap.
In a Independant Quebec, Lizzy would remain the Head of State anyway.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 17, 2011, 04:28:02 PM
In a Independant Quebec, Lizzy would remain the Head of State anyway.
:huh:
I'm pretty sure if the PQ were to get its way and declare independence(which is unlikely anyways) they'd declare Quebec a Republic.
As long as Canucks spell like Brits they will be part of the empire/commonwealth/realm/whatever.
Quote from: Barrister on August 17, 2011, 04:28:52 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 17, 2011, 04:28:02 PM
In a Independant Quebec, Lizzy would remain the Head of State anyway.
:huh:
I'm pretty sure if the PQ were to get its way and declare independence(which is unlikely anyways) they'd declare Quebec a Republic.
I don't. The plan back in 95 was to remain in the commonwealth.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 17, 2011, 04:33:16 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 17, 2011, 04:28:52 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 17, 2011, 04:28:02 PM
In a Independant Quebec, Lizzy would remain the Head of State anyway.
:huh:
I'm pretty sure if the PQ were to get its way and declare independence(which is unlikely anyways) they'd declare Quebec a Republic.
I don't. The plan back in 95 was to remain in the commonwealth.
Not all countries in the Commonwealth have the Queen as Head of State. India, for example.
Quote from: derspiess on August 17, 2011, 04:29:53 PM
As long as Canucks spell like Brits they will be part of the empire/commonwealth/realm/whatever.
At some point we had a good thread as to why Yanks became lazy spellers.
I don't really see the big beef Viper has.
I don't think anyone other than him does.
I don't get why anyone would want to go through the expense and effort of changing it though either.
Quote from: Maximus on August 17, 2011, 05:09:44 PM
I don't think anyone other than him does.
I don't get why anyone would want to go through the expense and effort of changing it though either.
The Monarchy, or the names of the Air Force and Navy?
MacKay did say they wouldn't be spending any new money on it - just from this day out ordering anything new to read RCN or RCAF.
Apparently the names RCAF and RCN were never legally taken away - they just administratively weren't used any longer. They don't even need to pass a law, or Order in Council, to do this.
The names. *shrug* it's no big deal, but I don't get why they're doing it.
Quote from: Maximus on August 17, 2011, 05:35:49 PM
The names. *shrug* it's no big deal, but I don't get why they're doing it.
Harper has very consciously and deliberately tried to emphasize a more "conservative" Canadian self-image as part of the overall plan to make the Conservatives the "natural governing party". That includes greater emphasis and respect for both the Canadian military, and the royalty, as well as a greater emphasis on Canadian history and tradition.
All of that combines nicely in bringing back the traditional names.
beeb, you need an avatar change...
this thread seems to be getting ready for an Avro Arrow Hijack.
Quote from: Viking on August 17, 2011, 05:49:31 PM
beeb, you need an avatar change...
:unsure:
You do know what this avatar is, don't you?
:cool:
Quote from: Barrister on August 17, 2011, 05:52:09 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 17, 2011, 05:49:31 PM
beeb, you need an avatar change...
:unsure:
You do know what this avatar is, don't you?
:cool:
It's not the roundel
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.canadiandesignresource.ca%2Fofficialgallery%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2007%2F08%2FCanadianAirforce.jpg&hash=c0270661aeb8d9c7c19239f289beaec7f7431544)
so I conclude that it now is missing a crown of some sort... but, if I'm wrong please enlighten me...
after a bit more research, obviously, I'm wrong....
besides, there is only one winnipeg hockey team worth mentioning
That gold medal belongs to US!
Quote from: Barrister on August 17, 2011, 05:52:09 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 17, 2011, 05:49:31 PM
beeb, you need an avatar change...
:unsure:
You do know what this avatar is, don't you?
:cool:
Lockheed Martins corporate logotype?
Quote from: Maximus on August 17, 2011, 05:09:44 PM
I don't think anyone other than him does.
I don't get why anyone would want to go through the expense and effort of changing it though either.
Repainting the dozen odd vehicles the Canadian military has and the purchase of new stationary doesn't seem to difficult.
Is the Winnipeg Jets logo supposed to be a stylized Hornet?
Please don't feed the BBeast.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 17, 2011, 07:37:56 PM
Is the Winnipeg Jets logo supposed to be a stylized Hornet?
Yeah.
Quote from: Barrister on August 17, 2011, 05:41:58 PM
Quote from: Maximus on August 17, 2011, 05:35:49 PM
The names. *shrug* it's no big deal, but I don't get why they're doing it.
Harper has very consciously and deliberately tried to emphasize a more "conservative" Canadian self-image as part of the overall plan to make the Conservatives the "natural governing party". That includes greater emphasis and respect for both the Canadian military, and the royalty, as well as a greater emphasis on Canadian history and tradition.
All of that combines nicely in bringing back the traditional names.
He just lost Quebec forever.
He better be ready to sign his checkbook for Ontario every 4 years.
Quote from: viper37 on August 17, 2011, 08:21:16 PM
He just lost Quebec forever.
He better be ready to sign his checkbook for Ontario every 4 years.
You're overstating things. Forever is a long, long time.
Mind you, it turns out that Quebec isn't all that important for the Tories. They gave them their distinct society nod, and now they're done listening to their sniviling and whining.
Quote from: viper37 on August 17, 2011, 08:21:16 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 17, 2011, 05:41:58 PM
Quote from: Maximus on August 17, 2011, 05:35:49 PM
The names. *shrug* it's no big deal, but I don't get why they're doing it.
Harper has very consciously and deliberately tried to emphasize a more "conservative" Canadian self-image as part of the overall plan to make the Conservatives the "natural governing party". That includes greater emphasis and respect for both the Canadian military, and the royalty, as well as a greater emphasis on Canadian history and tradition.
All of that combines nicely in bringing back the traditional names.
He just lost Quebec forever.
He better be ready to sign his checkbook for Ontario every 4 years.
Yeah. I don't think anyone that voted for Harper cares about this. Those that didn't vote for him, never would anyway. This only matters to you Viper.
I was under the impression that nobody in Quebec voted Tory. :Canuck: :frog: :pope: :tinfoil:
If you are right wing and a Quebecker you really have no voice in politics I guess.
Quote from: viper37 on August 17, 2011, 08:21:16 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 17, 2011, 05:41:58 PM
Quote from: Maximus on August 17, 2011, 05:35:49 PM
The names. *shrug* it's no big deal, but I don't get why they're doing it.
Harper has very consciously and deliberately tried to emphasize a more "conservative" Canadian self-image as part of the overall plan to make the Conservatives the "natural governing party". That includes greater emphasis and respect for both the Canadian military, and the royalty, as well as a greater emphasis on Canadian history and tradition.
All of that combines nicely in bringing back the traditional names.
He just lost Quebec forever.
He better be ready to sign his checkbook for Ontario every 4 years.
By my count he lost Quebec "forever" a half dozen times by now.
Quote from: Viking on August 17, 2011, 06:04:11 PM
after a bit more research, obviously, I'm wrong....
besides, there is only one winnipeg hockey team worth mentioning
That gold medal belongs to US!
:unsure:
What the hell are you talking about?
And clearly there is only one Winnipeg hockey team worth talking about - the multiple AVCO Cup winning Winnipeg Jets. :cool:
Quote from: Ideologue on August 17, 2011, 07:37:56 PM
Is the Winnipeg Jets logo supposed to be a stylized Hornet?
It is the
RCAF Roundel, with a stylized CF-18 Hornet superimposed, but it is also made out to act as a compass rose (check out the two-tone effect on the jet) as a subtle nod to the ownership company, True North Sports and Entertainment.
Apparently the Jets are giving $1mil over the next 10 years to some military charities, presumably as part of getting permission to use the roundel.
Quote from: Barrister on August 17, 2011, 09:28:13 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 17, 2011, 06:04:11 PM
after a bit more research, obviously, I'm wrong....
besides, there is only one winnipeg hockey team worth mentioning
That gold medal belongs to US!
:unsure:
What the hell are you talking about?
And clearly there is only one Winnipeg hockey team worth talking about - the multiple AVCO Cup winning Winnipeg Jets. :cool:
The 1920 Winnipeg Falcons
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hockey-information.com%2Fimages%2FWinnipeg1920Falcons.jpg&hash=7f08858669f91e0bbe7703c3bedec3e4c3f02128)
Firstname Firstnamesson's the bulk of them...
:contract:
Excellent text, but in French (http://www.cyberpresse.ca/chroniqueurs/yves-boisvert/201108/17/01-4426801-un-pays-colonise.php?utm_categorieinterne=trafficdrivers&utm_contenuinterne=cyberpresse_aujourdhui-sur-cyberpresse_267_accueil_ECRAN1POS1)
Title: A colonized country.
I don't think the word "colonized" has the same meaning in English though.
Still en excellent text. From a Federalist journalist in a federalist newspaper, before the usual accusations occur.
Perhaps you can sum up the parts for those of use can't read French?
Quote from: Barrister on August 17, 2011, 09:26:51 PM
By my count he lost Quebec "forever" a half dozen times by now.
only at the last election.
Before that, 10-11 MPs was still an impressive gain considering this is the successor to the Reform Party, with a creationist wing, and the actual PM was totally opposed to official bilinguism less than 10 years ago.
I think the Quebec wing of the Conservative party was right, the party has really abandonned us.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 17, 2011, 11:30:41 PM
Perhaps you can sum up the parts for those of use can't read French?
I babel fished it. Don't know if I got all of it, but it sounds like the main beef the author has is that he is being reminded of things he wishes to ignore. Things like the countries history, and the fact that Canada is a predominantly culturally and linguistically a British country.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 17, 2011, 11:30:41 PM
Perhaps you can sum up the parts for those of use can't read French?
Summary:
Royal name doesn't gave a plus value to the army.
Relating our dead soldiers, those who died in just wars to a foreing sovereign is no more respectuous than the current (well, past) situation.
The Conservative government wants to renew with an old tradition of honoring our heroes, but it fails miserably. (Note from me: soldiers I know would much prefer better equipment and more resources than a silly sounding name).
It's a symbolic change greated with enthusiasm by the Globe & Mail (big ontarian newspaper, left leaning and mostly anti-Quebec like all Canadian newspapers) and the CBC.
There is no insult to our soldiers by calling an army by its national name, by the name of its country.
As seen with the visit of Kate&William, an important proportion of English Canadians still worship their colonial masters.
The article goes on with the Foreign Minister removing all paintings by a famous Canadian (Quebec) artist to replace them with protraits of Queen Elizabeth 2.
Further talks of total disbelief as, 235 years after the American Revolution, the worshipping of foreign royals looks pathetic.
No adult country would rejoice of having a foreign monarch.
Weird talks of Canadian nationalism being based on worship of foreign leaders (I would had hatred of America, but he doesn't)
Then there's talk of the Canadian government celebrating the 60 years of reign of QE2, wich coincide with the anniversary of the war of 1812 when Americans invaded Canada thinking the people would support them, where as the fought against them (note: given they were Royalists whose parents had seem their houses burnt by the Rebels, it's understandable).
The War of 1812 is apparently, for English Canada, the foundation of their national feelings, the first time they realized they were not Americans.
The 1982 Constitution, brought back from England, was apparently not enough to de-colonize the country.
The restoration of British monarchy symbol does not do anything to restore pride to the country, but rather it reinforce its mediocrity, the idea that the country has not totally given birth to itself.
***
It's a general idea, I did not always used the exact same words, and as I said, the meaning of the word "colonized" (colonisé) probably does not have the exact same signification in English, even outside of Quebec.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 17, 2011, 11:44:35 PM
I babel fished it. Don't know if I got all of it, but it sounds like the main beef the author has is that he is being reminded of things he wishes to ignore. Things like the countries history, and the fact that Canada is a predominantly culturally and linguistically a British country.
Linguistically, I don't think he even cares. Canada is an English country pretending to be bilingual. It's been like that since 1867, before that, the colonial authorities were not even pretending to be bilingual or to treat French as equal citizens. For some it's reason enough to seperate, for others, like this journalist, it's not enough.
Culturally, however, his the main point of his argument. Canada should try to reinforce its own culture rather than adhere to a foreign one.
I don't know of any English Canadians worshipping Obama or G.W. Bush. They even do their best to remind you at every turn that they are totally different than the Americans, what with a few different words here&there. Frankly, English Canadians have more in common with Americans living near our borders (and it goes for most of Quebecers too) than with the British.
But there is that fear of assimilation by the US Empire, and it gives us silly things like this, where we try to create a nationalist feeling by worshipping a foreign leader. And it will fail, as it did before.
Yeah, it's what I thought. The feeling of being snubbed by their more populous Anglophone countrymen and the desire to ignore the reality of Canada. I think colonialism in this sense means "Cultural Imperialism".
QuoteThe article goes on with the Foreign Minister removing all paintings by a famous Canadian (Quebec) artist to replace them with protraits of Queen Elizabeth 2.
Wow, that's a really, really petty complaint. Where is he removing them from by the way?
If I were Quebeci, I wouldn't really bring up the American Revolution or War of 1812. I mean you had your chance get away from Monarchy then, and failed to take it. If you guys want to be a Republic, go be a Republic. Don't forget to write and tell us all how it went.
Quote from: Barrister on August 17, 2011, 09:30:28 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 17, 2011, 07:37:56 PM
Is the Winnipeg Jets logo supposed to be a stylized Hornet?
It is the RCAF Roundel, with a stylized CF-18 Hornet superimposed, but it is also made out to act as a compass rose (check out the two-tone effect on the jet) as a subtle nod to the ownership company, True North Sports and Entertainment.
Apparently the Jets are giving $1mil over the next 10 years to some military charities, presumably as part of getting permission to use the roundel.
Do you have to get permission to use a roundel or other government image? I mean, they can't be fraudulent, but that's a different thing. I thought they were public domain.
For that matter, does Northrop-Grumman own the rights to artistic recreations of F/A-18s (or GM, that of a Camaro)? Maybe they do. If so, that would explain why the outline is off a little bit (in addition to your explanation, anyway; but e.g. the tail section is if I'm not mistaken slightly wrong). But I could certainly see an F-86 Sabre in an air combat comic, had I lived in the 1950s and read books about the Korean War, and I see F-22s in comics today. Are they violating copyright to do that? Did TW need to arrange to use images of the Raptor in Green Lantern?
This is probably a basic pair of questions, but I've never really been much into IP law.
Quote from: viper37 on August 17, 2011, 11:27:41 PM
I don't think the word "colonized" has the same meaning in English though.
I don't really think that's true. I just think that 'colonial' is a buzzword for bad for most intellectuals, especially on the left.
"Colonial masters"? Canada was not some African nation or something. And even if they were the Canadians are overwhelmingly the Colons not the Algerians.
Quote from: viper37 on August 17, 2011, 11:27:41 PM
Title: A colonized country.
I don't think the word "colonized" has the same meaning in English though.
Still en excellent text. From a Federalist journalist in a federalist newspaper, before the usual accusations occur.
I read this this morning. And yes, Anglo Canadians being what they are - the popularity of this move doesn't surprise me. In fact I'm pleased since the more Canadians move in another direction then Quebecers, the easier it will be to bring the latter around and leave this federation. ^_^
G.
It's hilarious, if sorta sad, to see the Quebec contingent going apeshit over such a matter. We live in a monarchy, and always have - since, as is well known, the monarch is purely symbolic, what's the beef?
Of course the army would rather have better supplies and equipment than a new name. Point is that a new name doesn't cost anything much, whereas new supplies and equipment does - it isn't an either-or choice.
Contrary to the hysterical bombast eminating from Quebec, most in Anglo Canada are not rapturously applauding the move - they simply don't care very much either way. Because it isn't something worthy of much caring, as it changes nothing.
Ya, in the anglo sphere there this is nothing. It's a "feel good story" only in so far as it ties in with a proud past. beyond that it was forgoten by the next day.
Quote from: HVC on August 18, 2011, 08:19:50 AM
only in so far as it ties in with a proud past.
The Kingdom of Portugal?
Quote from: Valmy on August 18, 2011, 08:27:45 AM
Quote from: HVC on August 18, 2011, 08:19:50 AM
only in so far as it ties in with a proud past.
The Kingdom of Portugal?
:p
If you want to, ya. longest alliance still in existance, IIRC
Quote from: Razgovory on August 17, 2011, 11:56:24 PM
QuoteThe article goes on with the Foreign Minister removing all paintings by a famous Canadian (Quebec) artist to replace them with protraits of Queen Elizabeth 2.
Wow, that's a really, really petty complaint. Where is he removing them from by the way?
Typical of most complaints that come out of Quebec anymore (back in the day, they had some far more legit complaints, but those have pretty much all been addressed). Viper is usually above that sort of thing, though. I thought maybe Grallon had hijacked his account or something. Maybe Viper is drunk or ill--the English in a couple of his posts was pretty bad, whereas usually it's as good or better than that of most of us.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 18, 2011, 01:50:16 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 17, 2011, 09:30:28 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 17, 2011, 07:37:56 PM
Is the Winnipeg Jets logo supposed to be a stylized Hornet?
It is the RCAF Roundel, with a stylized CF-18 Hornet superimposed, but it is also made out to act as a compass rose (check out the two-tone effect on the jet) as a subtle nod to the ownership company, True North Sports and Entertainment.
Apparently the Jets are giving $1mil over the next 10 years to some military charities, presumably as part of getting permission to use the roundel.
Do you have to get permission to use a roundel or other government image? I mean, they can't be fraudulent, but that's a different thing. I thought they were public domain.
For that matter, does Northrop-Grumman own the rights to artistic recreations of F/A-18s (or GM, that of a Camaro)? Maybe they do. If so, that would explain why the outline is off a little bit (in addition to your explanation, anyway; but e.g. the tail section is if I'm not mistaken slightly wrong). But I could certainly see an F-86 Sabre in an air combat comic, had I lived in the 1950s and read books about the Korean War, and I see F-22s in comics today. Are they violating copyright to do that? Did TW need to arrange to use images of the Raptor in Green Lantern?
This is probably a basic pair of questions, but I've never really been much into IP law.
Those are some pretty basic questions. My knowledge of IP law doesn't go any further than a single IP class in law school, but I think I can answer that.
I believe the RCAF would own the trademark to the RCAF roundel (although being a Crown entity does complicate it somehow). You could use that image in a variety of means under fair use doctrine, but to wholeheartedly incorporate it into your for-profit corporation's own trademark? No way that's fair use.
Even if I'm wrong, I doubt very much you'd want to pick a fight with the RCAF in any event.
As for the F-18... yes I think they own the trademark rights to the image. I'm pretty sure an auto manufacturer owns the rights to the look of their own vehicle, so one company can't just go ahead and create a knock-off of another company's vehicle.
Comics are probably covered under fair use, as they are an artistic representation.
The fighter in the Jets logo does resemble the CF-18, but I have read they deliberately did not want it to be a precise copy of any fighter that Canada has flown, or will ever flow, just to keep it more timeless.
Quote from: dps on August 18, 2011, 09:02:20 AM
Typical of most complaints that come out of Quebec anymore ...
And a typical torrent of clichés and prejudices from the neighboring country, whenever the people of this one don't pull in the same direction.
What's Canada? A cart being pulled by 2 horses going in opposite direction. :P
G.
I just like having both sides here to voice their opinions. The Flems bashing the Walloons is such a comparative drag without Walloons around to bash them back.
Quote from: Grallon on August 18, 2011, 09:38:50 AM
Quote from: dps on August 18, 2011, 09:02:20 AM
Typical of most complaints that come out of Quebec anymore ...
And a typical torrent of clichés and prejudices from the neighboring country, whenever the people of this one don't pull in the same direction.
What's Canada? A cart being pulled by 2 horses going in opposite direction. :P
G.
The horses are going in the same direction, but there's a tiny (but very loud) fly trying the aggetate the french speaking horse :D
Quote from: Grallon on August 18, 2011, 09:38:50 AM
And a typical torrent of clichés and prejudices from the neighboring country, whenever the people of this one don't pull in the same direction.
Heh like we get much better from you guys.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 18, 2011, 01:50:16 AM
Do you have to get permission to use a roundel or other government image? I mean, they can't be fraudulent, but that's a different thing. I thought they were public domain.
For that matter, does Northrop-Grumman own the rights to artistic recreations of F/A-18s (or GM, that of a Camaro)? Maybe they do. If so, that would explain why the outline is off a little bit (in addition to your explanation, anyway; but e.g. the tail section is if I'm not mistaken slightly wrong). But I could certainly see an F-86 Sabre in an air combat comic, had I lived in the 1950s and read books about the Korean War, and I see F-22s in comics today. Are they violating copyright to do that? Did TW need to arrange to use images of the Raptor in Green Lantern?
This is probably a basic pair of questions, but I've never really been much into IP law.
For the car images I'm pretty sure GM owns the image of the Camaro, for example. Video games license the car images as necessary, or alternately go through a fairly thorough process of making "close enough, but nonetheless different" vehicles.
Quote from: Viking on August 17, 2011, 09:32:47 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 17, 2011, 09:28:13 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 17, 2011, 06:04:11 PM
after a bit more research, obviously, I'm wrong....
besides, there is only one winnipeg hockey team worth mentioning
That gold medal belongs to US!
:unsure:
What the hell are you talking about?
And clearly there is only one Winnipeg hockey team worth talking about - the multiple AVCO Cup winning Winnipeg Jets. :cool:
The 1920 Winnipeg Falcons
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hockey-information.com%2Fimages%2FWinnipeg1920Falcons.jpg&hash=7f08858669f91e0bbe7703c3bedec3e4c3f02128)
Firstname Firstnamesson's the bulk of them...
:contract:
Haven't I been telling you that Manitoba has the largest Icelandic population outside of Iceland for a long time? :contract:
Falcons was a popular contender for the new name of the team (though nowhere near as popular as Jets).
But if you want to go that far back, then you might as well talk about the only Winnipeg team to win the Stanley Cup - the Winnipeg Victorias. Champions in 1896, 1901, and 1902. :showoff:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fc%2Fc5%2FC079304-v5.jpg&hash=678dd83224228dd71c29e272bce6ab3a28bce00a)
Quote from: HVC on August 18, 2011, 09:41:55 AM
Quote from: Grallon on August 18, 2011, 09:38:50 AM
Quote from: dps on August 18, 2011, 09:02:20 AM
Typical of most complaints that come out of Quebec anymore ...
And a typical torrent of clichés and prejudices from the neighboring country, whenever the people of this one don't pull in the same direction.
What's Canada? A cart being pulled by 2 horses going in opposite direction. :P
G.
The horses are going in the same direction, but there's a tiny (but very loud) fly trying the aggetate the french speaking horse :D
Psst - don't tell Grallon, Viper & co. about the
Royal Canadian Mint. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on August 18, 2011, 09:57:03 AM
Psst - don't tell Grallon, Viper & co. about the Royal Canadian Mint. ;)
So long as they do not commit the ultimate insult and start putting the Queen's face on the currency I am ok with it.
Quote from: Malthus on August 18, 2011, 09:57:03 AM
Quote from: HVC on August 18, 2011, 09:41:55 AM
Quote from: Grallon on August 18, 2011, 09:38:50 AM
Quote from: dps on August 18, 2011, 09:02:20 AM
Typical of most complaints that come out of Quebec anymore ...
And a typical torrent of clichés and prejudices from the neighboring country, whenever the people of this one don't pull in the same direction.
What's Canada? A cart being pulled by 2 horses going in opposite direction. :P
G.
The horses are going in the same direction, but there's a tiny (but very loud) fly trying the aggetate the french speaking horse :D
Psst - don't tell Grallon, Viper & co. about the Royal Canadian Mint. ;)
hope they don't bank at the RBC either.
Quote from: Valmy on August 18, 2011, 09:42:01 AM
Heh like we get much better from you guys.
Valmy, the neighboring country I was referring to isn't the US - it's Canada. :contract:
G.
Quotethe Winnipeg Victorias
Sigh.
if you're a different country stop accepting canada's money :D (ontario gets to keep being a have not casue we bow down to the one rightful queen :lol:)
Quote from: Grallon on August 18, 2011, 10:34:36 AM
Valmy, the neighboring country I was referring to isn't the US - it's Canada. :contract:
Ah gotcha. You were responding to dps so I was confused.
Quote from: viper37 on August 17, 2011, 11:47:47 PM
The War of 1812 is apparently, for English Canada, the foundation of their national feelings, the first time they realized they were not Americans.
For all the times I was told I didnt understand Quebec (probably correctly) pot meet kettle.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 18, 2011, 11:08:03 AM
Quote from: viper37 on August 17, 2011, 11:47:47 PM
The War of 1812 is apparently, for English Canada, the foundation of their national feelings, the first time they realized they were not Americans.
For all the times I was told I didnt understand Quebec (probably correctly) pot meet kettle.
Until then we felt left out for not being invited the revolutionary fun a few decades before :(
Quote from: Grallon on August 18, 2011, 10:34:36 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 18, 2011, 09:42:01 AM
Heh like we get much better from you guys.
Valmy, the neighboring country I was referring to isn't the US - it's Canada. :contract:
G.
Your Grammar is usually quite good but in the case you have to be in a Country in order to have a neighboring country and the only country neighboring where you live is the US.
You can go on pretending it is not so. I suppose that is harmless.
Quote from: Valmy on August 18, 2011, 10:02:16 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 18, 2011, 09:57:03 AM
Psst - don't tell Grallon, Viper & co. about the Royal Canadian Mint. ;)
So long as they do not commit the ultimate insult and start putting the Queen's face on the currency I am ok with it.
I'm quite willing to be insulted - repeatedly - by recieving $20 bills from the good folks of Quebec. :)
Quote from: Malthus on August 18, 2011, 11:15:30 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 18, 2011, 10:02:16 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 18, 2011, 09:57:03 AM
Psst - don't tell Grallon, Viper & co. about the Royal Canadian Mint. ;)
So long as they do not commit the ultimate insult and start putting the Queen's face on the currency I am ok with it.
I'm quite willing to be insulted - repeatedly - by recieving $20 bills from the good folks of Quebec. :)
I remember a conversation with a Canadian Professor of Education at a cocktail party where I tried to convince her that Canada was a Monarchy, she seemed to think it was a Republic since Canada got it's Constitution. It wasn't until I asked her what face was on her money and walked her through the Canadian constitutional system that she relented and admitted that Canada was a Monarchy, just like Norway.
Quote from: Viking on August 18, 2011, 11:39:35 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 18, 2011, 11:15:30 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 18, 2011, 10:02:16 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 18, 2011, 09:57:03 AM
Psst - don't tell Grallon, Viper & co. about the Royal Canadian Mint. ;)
So long as they do not commit the ultimate insult and start putting the Queen's face on the currency I am ok with it.
I'm quite willing to be insulted - repeatedly - by recieving $20 bills from the good folks of Quebec. :)
I remember a conversation with a Canadian Professor of Education at a cocktail party where I tried to convince her that Canada was a Monarchy, she seemed to think it was a Republic since Canada got it's Constitution. It wasn't until I asked her what face was on her money and walked her through the Canadian constitutional system that she relented and admitted that Canada was a Monarchy, just like Norway.
Well not exactly like Norway, since we have the Governor General as intermediary...
Quote from: Viking on August 18, 2011, 11:39:35 AM
I remember a conversation with a Canadian Professor of Education at a cocktail party where I tried to convince her that Canada was a Monarchy, she seemed to think it was a Republic since Canada got it's Constitution. It wasn't until I asked her what face was on her money and walked her through the Canadian constitutional system that she relented and admitted that Canada was a Monarchy, just like Norway.
Obviously failing to receive an education I am glad this Canadian decided to study why.
Quote from: Barrister on August 18, 2011, 11:42:12 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 18, 2011, 11:39:35 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 18, 2011, 11:15:30 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 18, 2011, 10:02:16 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 18, 2011, 09:57:03 AM
Psst - don't tell Grallon, Viper & co. about the Royal Canadian Mint. ;)
So long as they do not commit the ultimate insult and start putting the Queen's face on the currency I am ok with it.
I'm quite willing to be insulted - repeatedly - by recieving $20 bills from the good folks of Quebec. :)
I remember a conversation with a Canadian Professor of Education at a cocktail party where I tried to convince her that Canada was a Monarchy, she seemed to think it was a Republic since Canada got it's Constitution. It wasn't until I asked her what face was on her money and walked her through the Canadian constitutional system that she relented and admitted that Canada was a Monarchy, just like Norway.
Well not exactly like Norway, since we have the Governor General as intermediary...
Norway had a Governor General from 1814 to 1905 :contract:
there are lots of irrelevant differences between the Norwegian and Canadian Monarchies.
Quote from: Viking on August 18, 2011, 11:39:35 AM
I remember a conversation with a Canadian Professor of Education at a cocktail party where I tried to convince her that Canada was a Monarchy, she seemed to think it was a Republic since Canada got it's Constitution. It wasn't until I asked her what face was on her money and walked her through the Canadian constitutional system that she relented and admitted that Canada was a Monarchy, just like Norway.
Since it was a cocktail party I am pretty sure you had a few too many and misremember how this went. The only Canadian who thinks he is living in a Republic is Grallon.
Quote from: Grallon on August 18, 2011, 07:59:07 AM
Quote from: viper37 on August 17, 2011, 11:27:41 PM
Title: A colonized country.
I don't think the word "colonized" has the same meaning in English though.
Still en excellent text. From a Federalist journalist in a federalist newspaper, before the usual accusations occur.
I read this this morning. And yes, Anglo Canadians being what they are - the popularity of this move doesn't surprise me. In fact I'm pleased since the more Canadians move in another direction then Quebecers, the easier it will be to bring the latter around and leave this federation. ^_^
G.
Then Haiti will have some competition for "Most corrupt state" in the Western Hemisphere.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 18, 2011, 11:56:28 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 18, 2011, 11:39:35 AM
I remember a conversation with a Canadian Professor of Education at a cocktail party where I tried to convince her that Canada was a Monarchy, she seemed to think it was a Republic since Canada got it's Constitution. It wasn't until I asked her what face was on her money and walked her through the Canadian constitutional system that she relented and admitted that Canada was a Monarchy, just like Norway.
Since it was a cocktail party I am pretty sure you had a few too many and misremember how this went. The only Canadian who thinks he is living in a Republic is Grallon.
I've met a lot more ignorant Canadians than you have. :huh:
Quote from: Barrister on August 18, 2011, 12:06:19 PM
I've met a lot more ignorant Canadians than you have. :huh:
You do live in Edmonton after all.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 18, 2011, 11:56:28 AM
The only Canadian who thinks he is living in a Republic is Grallon.
:rolleyes:
You know perfectly well what I meant, but being a lawyer you naturally fall back to the common masturbatory tactic of semantics.
G.
Quote from: HVC on August 18, 2011, 11:09:19 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 18, 2011, 11:08:03 AM
Quote from: viper37 on August 17, 2011, 11:47:47 PM
The War of 1812 is apparently, for English Canada, the foundation of their national feelings, the first time they realized they were not Americans.
For all the times I was told I didnt understand Quebec (probably correctly) pot meet kettle.
Until then we felt left out for not being invited the revolutionary fun a few decades before :(
You were invited - you were just boorish and said no. :angry:
Quote from: Grallon on August 18, 2011, 12:39:42 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 18, 2011, 11:56:28 AM
The only Canadian who thinks he is living in a Republic is Grallon.
:rolleyes:
You know perfectly well what I meant, but being a lawyer you naturally fall back to the common masturbatory tactic of semantics.
G.
Come on it was a good joke.
Quote from: Viking on August 18, 2011, 11:44:04 AM
Norway had a Governor General from 1814 to 1905 :contract:
You weren't an independant country then.
Quote from: HVC on August 18, 2011, 11:09:19 AM
Until then we felt left out for not being invited the revolutionary fun a few decades before :(
You probably felt no different than you felt when being Virginian colonists, South Carolian colonists or Massachussets colonists.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 18, 2011, 11:08:03 AM
For all the times I was told I didnt understand Quebec (probably correctly) pot meet kettle.
The expression is
"Les deux Solitudes", meaning that both are unable to understand each another. Like a married couple having seperate bedrooms. They are together, but not together ;)
I still don't get that fascination about the British monarchy. Sure, in 1812, Canadians felt British, and they were the most British of all the Americans, I get that. In WW1 and WW2, I was told it was because there had been an influx of newly arrived British immigrants seeking a newer life, and some of them even felt more British than Canadian, wich prompted them to enlist under the British flag. I can get that too.
But today, 2011? Replacing paintings from a well known Canadian artist by portraits of the Queen? Wtf!?? What kind of weird fetish is this?
Receiving the Prince and his new wife, I could get it too, Quebec city's mayor had asked of the Feds to invite them, to boost tourism, and it apparently works. Now, if you ask me to understand all those people who want to see William and Kate from 100m away, that I don't get. I don't get that weird thing either about "seeing" Hollywood stars from a distance or touring accross the parts of L.A. where they have their houses, but, silly me, I must be a really boring individual for not partaking into such idiocies. I wouldn't mind having a drink with Jessica Biel, but seeing her from 300ft away while behind some fence, I just don't get it. But it seems it's a popular activity with the monarchy. Oh well.
And now... Instead of building on the future of our troops and adressing more pressing problems, we go back in time, we turn the wheel. Still don't get why so many English Canadians play the Cheerleaders on this, like the Globe&Mail editorial.
Quote from: viper37 on August 18, 2011, 01:41:32 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 18, 2011, 11:08:03 AM
For all the times I was told I didnt understand Quebec (probably correctly) pot meet kettle.
I still don't get that fascination about the British monarchy.
That's teh thing. She's not the british queen. She's our queen.
Quote from: viper37 on August 18, 2011, 01:41:32 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 18, 2011, 11:08:03 AM
For all the times I was told I didnt understand Quebec (probably correctly) pot meet kettle.
The expression is "Les deux Solitudes", meaning that both are unable to understand each another. Like a married couple having seperate bedrooms. They are together, but not together ;)
I still don't get that fascination about the British monarchy. Sure, in 1812, Canadians felt British, and they were the most British of all the Americans, I get that. In WW1 and WW2, I was told it was because there had been an influx of newly arrived British immigrants seeking a newer life, and some of them even felt more British than Canadian, wich prompted them to enlist under the British flag. I can get that too.
But today, 2011? Replacing paintings from a well known Canadian artist by portraits of the Queen? Wtf!?? What kind of weird fetish is this?
Receiving the Prince and his new wife, I could get it too, Quebec city's mayor had asked of the Feds to invite them, to boost tourism, and it apparently works. Now, if you ask me to understand all those people who want to see William and Kate from 100m away, that I don't get. I don't get that weird thing either about "seeing" Hollywood stars from a distance or touring accross the parts of L.A. where they have their houses, but, silly me, I must be a really boring individual for not partaking into such idiocies. I wouldn't mind having a drink with Jessica Biel, but seeing her from 300ft away while behind some fence, I just don't get it. But it seems it's a popular activity with the monarchy. Oh well.
And now... Instead of building on the future of our troops and adressing more pressing problems, we go back in time, we turn the wheel. Still don't get why so many English Canadians play the Cheerleaders on this, like the Globe&Mail editorial.
Because it's not a fascination with the
British monarchy. It's a fascination with
our monarchy, and with
our traditions and heritage.
I wouldn't be particularily interested in, say, establishing a Canadian knighthood, and having the government start handing out Sirs to people. That's never been our history. Nor would I want beefeaters patrolling on Parliament Hill, or to start celebrating Guy Fawkes day. That has nothing to do with Canada.
But the RCAF and RCN? Now those are Canadian.
In particular, my granfather served as a wireless operator with the RCAF during the war, and he was exceedingly proud of it (though he didn't talk much about it). I know he'd be damn proud to know they have returned to that name.
Quote from: viper37 on August 18, 2011, 01:41:32 PM
Receiving the Prince and his new wife, I could get it too, Quebec city's mayor had asked of the Feds to invite them, to boost tourism, and it apparently works. Now, if you ask me to understand all those people who want to see William and Kate from 100m away, that I don't get. I don't get that weird thing either about "seeing" Hollywood stars from a distance or touring accross the parts of L.A. where they have their houses, but, silly me, I must be a really boring individual for not partaking into such idiocies. I wouldn't mind having a drink with Jessica Biel, but seeing her from 300ft away while behind some fence, I just don't get it. But it seems it's a popular activity with the monarchy. Oh well.
Yet it sounds like you do. They are celebrities. They are glamorous. There is nothing really to get.
Quote from: viper37 on August 18, 2011, 01:37:58 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 18, 2011, 11:09:19 AM
Until then we felt left out for not being invited the revolutionary fun a few decades before :(
You probably felt no different than you felt when being Virginian colonists, South Carolian colonists or Massachussets colonists.
Damn HVC how many colonies were you a part of?
Quote from: Valmy on August 18, 2011, 01:59:59 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 18, 2011, 01:37:58 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 18, 2011, 11:09:19 AM
Until then we felt left out for not being invited the revolutionary fun a few decades before :(
You probably felt no different than you felt when being Virginian colonists, South Carolian colonists or Massachussets colonists.
Damn HVC how many colonies were you a part of?
:D
Quote from: Valmy on August 18, 2011, 01:59:59 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 18, 2011, 01:37:58 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 18, 2011, 11:09:19 AM
Until then we felt left out for not being invited the revolutionary fun a few decades before :(
You probably felt no different than you felt when being Virginian colonists, South Carolian colonists or Massachussets colonists.
Damn HVC how many colonies were you a part of?
my ancestors were sluts who travelled a lot :D
Quote from: HVC on August 18, 2011, 02:06:29 PM
my ancestors were sluts who travelled a lot :D
silly english language and no differenciation of the pronouns... ;)
Quote from: HVC on August 18, 2011, 01:43:01 PM
That's teh thing. She's not the british queen. She's our queen.
She is the British Queen, who happens to be the Queen of Canada by right of Conquest and
ethnic cleansing of the previous inhabitants. Hereditary title, of course. Doesn't change the historical facts.
Quote from: viper37 on August 18, 2011, 03:08:30 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 18, 2011, 01:43:01 PM
That's teh thing. She's not the british queen. She's our queen.
She is the British Queen, who happens to be the Queen of Canada by right of Conquest and
ethnic cleansing of the previous inhabitants. Hereditary title, of course. Doesn't change the historical facts.
And by consent of the population. And by law.
Quote from: viper37 on August 18, 2011, 03:08:30 PM
She is the British Queen, who happens to be the Queen of Canada by right of Conquest and
ethnic cleansing of the previous inhabitants. Hereditary title, of course. Doesn't change the historical facts.
"Previous inhabitants" being the First Nations? So what are you, as a Quebecer, complaining about? By your own "logic" you shouldn't be there either.
Quote from: viper37 on August 18, 2011, 03:08:30 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 18, 2011, 01:43:01 PM
That's teh thing. She's not the british queen. She's our queen.
She is the British Queen, who happens to be the Queen of Canada by right of Conquest and
ethnic cleansing of the previous inhabitants. Hereditary title, of course. Doesn't change the historical facts.
:wacko:
WTF are you talking about?
You are aware, of course, that the current ruling dynasty rule in the UK (and Canada) because the English Parliament invited them to be their monarchs by passing the Act of Settlement? They didn't conquer anything.
And you are also aware that numerous Commonwealth countries have become Republics by democratic means, and the Queen has done nothing but wish them well?
And ethnic cleansing? What the hell are you talking about? You can't be talking about natives, as they're still here.
Quote from: viper37 on August 18, 2011, 03:08:30 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 18, 2011, 01:43:01 PM
That's teh thing. She's not the british queen. She's our queen.
She is the British Queen, who happens to be the Queen of Canada by right of Conquest and
ethnic cleansing of the previous inhabitants. Hereditary title, of course. Doesn't change the historical facts.
Sounds exactly like every other Citizen of Canada. And the United States. Heck it is even a hereditary title :P
Well ok except the Native Americans.
Quote from: Barrister on August 18, 2011, 03:17:02 PM
And ethnic cleansing? What the hell are you talking about? You can't be talking about natives, as they're still here.
Didn't you move them out of the way like we did?
Quote from: Valmy on August 18, 2011, 03:18:40 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 18, 2011, 03:17:02 PM
And ethnic cleansing? What the hell are you talking about? You can't be talking about natives, as they're still here.
Didn't you move them out of the way like we did?
No.
We signed treaties (which the natives are still very keen on us following, BTW) where they agreed to move into reserations that were already on their traditional land. The whole forced migration of entire tribes is a very American phenomenon.
Quote from: Barrister on August 18, 2011, 03:22:51 PM
No.
We signed treaties (which the natives are still very keen on us following, BTW) where they agreed to move into reserations that were already on their traditional land. The whole forced migration of entire tribes is a very American phenomenon.
Maybe he is blaming the monarchy for the dastardly deeds we did while still British colonists? :hmm:
I have a hard time believing the Natives were not at least a little intimidated into signing those treaties. Especially with great guys like Amherst in charge.
Quote from: Barrister on August 18, 2011, 03:17:02 PM
You are aware, of course, that the current ruling dynasty rule in the UK (and Canada) because the English Parliament invited them to be their monarchs by passing the Act of Settlement? They didn't conquer anything.
If I conquer a country, deport the people there who could oppose me, put my own people in place, make sure the colony is administered by people I choose, is it a wonder that they choose to remain loyal to my crown?
Quote
And ethnic cleansing? What the hell are you talking about? You can't be talking about natives, as they're still here.
First, there was the Acadians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Acadians)
Then, the small pox infected blankets given to indians, to get rid of them. It was an official strategy by Amherst.
And the various deportation, attempted or successful of Indians and Métis, as well as the execution of Louis Riel to send a message that resistance was futile.
I'm not even talking about the forced assimilation of the French people outside of Quebec (mainly in Manitoba, and Ontario) following the Confederation, as these were technically crimes by the Canadians, not the British, even though we were a colony at the time.
Quote from: Valmy on August 18, 2011, 03:24:14 PM
I have a hard time believing the Natives were not at least a little intimidated into signing those treaties. Especially with great guys like Amherst in charge.
BB is oversimplifying a bit but in general he is correct. In the West there were few treaties signed and we are paying for that now.
Quote from: viper37 on August 18, 2011, 03:29:56 PM
Then, the small pox infected blankets given to indians, to get rid of them. It was an official strategy by Amherst.
It was a little too late. Small Pox had already decimated the Native Tribes because of the Seven Years War and the only suggestion this was ever tried happened before Amherst's infamous letter. Besides even if this was an Amherst strategy it will please you to know it backfired badly since the American colonists were decimated by the worst outbreak of Smallpox in our history right around that time. Something like 125,000 of us evil whitey Imperialists went down.
Amherst still sucks though.
meh... if Civilized nations didn't conquer and destroy the Barbarous then world would consist almost exclusively of the Barbarous. Furthermore I will assert that none of the "First Nations" of Canada were the first nation to occupy the land and the many generations of previous civilizations occupying each land had been genocided by the present "first nation" (scare quotes this time). To dip into the fetid pool of post-modernism, I consider it a grossly hegemonic imposition of Eurocentricims to treat the American Indians as innocent naïfs without worldlyness nor an ability to take responsability for their actions. No culture ethnically cleansed by "Imperialist Anglo-Canadians"!!!!1111oneoneoen didn't ethnically cleanse and/or assimilate a previous one.
Quote from: Viking on August 18, 2011, 03:38:30 PM
meh... if Civilized nations didn't conquer and destroy the Barbarous then world would consist almost exclusively of the Barbarous. Furthermore I will assert that none of the "First Nations" of Canada were the first nation to occupy the land and the many generations of previous civilizations occupying each land had been genocided by the present "first nation" (scare quotes this time). To dip into the fetid pool of post-modernism, I consider it a grossly hegemonic imposition of Eurocentricims to treat the American Indians as innocent naïfs without worldlyness nor an ability to take responsability for their actions. No culture ethnically cleansed by "Imperialist Anglo-Canadians"!!!!1111oneoneoen didn't ethnically cleanse and/or assimilate a previous one.
Fate, is that you?
Quote from: viper37 on August 18, 2011, 03:29:56 PM
If I conquer a country, deport the people there who could oppose me, put my own people in place, make sure the colony is administered by people I choose, is it a wonder that they choose to remain loyal to my crown?
Are you implying Canada is keeping its symbolic monarchy because of fear of Liz's despotic powers?
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 18, 2011, 03:39:32 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 18, 2011, 03:38:30 PM
meh... if Civilized nations didn't conquer and destroy the Barbarous then world would consist almost exclusively of the Barbarous. Furthermore I will assert that none of the "First Nations" of Canada were the first nation to occupy the land and the many generations of previous civilizations occupying each land had been genocided by the present "first nation" (scare quotes this time). To dip into the fetid pool of post-modernism, I consider it a grossly hegemonic imposition of Eurocentricims to treat the American Indians as innocent naïfs without worldlyness nor an ability to take responsability for their actions. No culture ethnically cleansed by "Imperialist Anglo-Canadians"!!!!1111oneoneoen didn't ethnically cleanse and/or assimilate a previous one.
Fate, is that you?
No, I am Viking. I belong to the only civilized people in the world to dominate it's country without ever having stolen it from anybody.
Quote from: Viking on August 18, 2011, 03:49:31 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 18, 2011, 03:39:32 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 18, 2011, 03:38:30 PM
meh... if Civilized nations didn't conquer and destroy the Barbarous then world would consist almost exclusively of the Barbarous. Furthermore I will assert that none of the "First Nations" of Canada were the first nation to occupy the land and the many generations of previous civilizations occupying each land had been genocided by the present "first nation" (scare quotes this time). To dip into the fetid pool of post-modernism, I consider it a grossly hegemonic imposition of Eurocentricims to treat the American Indians as innocent naïfs without worldlyness nor an ability to take responsability for their actions. No culture ethnically cleansed by "Imperialist Anglo-Canadians"!!!!1111oneoneoen didn't ethnically cleanse and/or assimilate a previous one.
Fate, is that you?
No, I am Viking. I belong to the only civilized people in the world to dominate it's country without ever having stolen it from anybody.
ok, Fate.
Will nobody think of the Irish monks :cry:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 18, 2011, 03:52:03 PM
Will nobody think of the Irish monks :cry:
They had it coming.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 18, 2011, 03:52:03 PM
Will nobody think of the Irish monks :cry:
Papey is not inhabited by icelanders. My ancestors just killed 12 monks and novices, so what?
Quote from: Valmy on August 18, 2011, 03:52:34 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 18, 2011, 03:52:03 PM
Will nobody think of the Irish monks :cry:
They had it coming.
Pre-emptive retaliation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases)
Quote from: viper37 on August 18, 2011, 03:29:56 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 18, 2011, 03:17:02 PM
You are aware, of course, that the current ruling dynasty rule in the UK (and Canada) because the English Parliament invited them to be their monarchs by passing the Act of Settlement? They didn't conquer anything.
If I conquer a country, deport the people there who could oppose me, put my own people in place, make sure the colony is administered by people I choose, is it a wonder that they choose to remain loyal to my crown?
You really should look into British history more often.
The House of Stuart was the lawful sovereign at the time. However, the Brits
didn't want to be ruled by a Catholic, so by the Act of Settlement they prhibited any Catholic from taking the throne, and instead gave it to the House of Hannover. And it is the descendents of the House of Hannover (which because of a couple of female Queens, and a World War, is now known as the House of Mountbatten-Windsor) who are our current monarchs.
Good Queen Liz isn't Queen because of some right of conquest. She is Queen because we chose her ancestors to be the sovereign, and because we continue to choose to have them as our sovereign.
Quote from: viper
Quote
And ethnic cleansing? What the hell are you talking about? You can't be talking about natives, as they're still here.
First, there was the Acadians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Acadians)
Then, the small pox infected blankets given to indians, to get rid of them. It was an official strategy by Amherst.
And the various deportation, attempted or successful of Indians and Métis, as well as the execution of Louis Riel to send a message that resistance was futile.
I'm not even talking about the forced assimilation of the French people outside of Quebec (mainly in Manitoba, and Ontario) following the Confederation, as these were technically crimes by the Canadians, not the British, even though we were a colony at the time.
Acadians were a tragedy, yes. Pretty small potatoes to tar an entire country with for all of history though.
But then you stray pretty far from the historical record. There was no deportation of Indians or Metis. At all. Louis Riel was hung because he led an armed rebellion against the government. There was no
forced assimilation of the French. There was some assimilation, yes, but I don't know if it would surprise you to learn that I know several native-born Albertans and Manitobans whose first language is French.
The Acadians moved to Louisiana didn't they? No offense to Canada but they have alot more fun than you guys do.
Quote from: Barrister on August 18, 2011, 04:01:49 PM
You really should look into British history more often.
The House of Stuart was the lawful sovereign at the time.
Pretty sure the stuff he is talking about happened after 1714.
Quote from: Valmy on August 18, 2011, 04:07:26 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 18, 2011, 04:01:49 PM
You really should look into British history more often.
The House of Stuart was the lawful sovereign at the time.
Pretty sure the stuff he is talking about happened after 1714.
But it goes to my point that the Queen only rules with the consent of her subjects.
Wuebec has every right, if they wish, to remove the Queen as their sovereign. However, they have instead twice voted to maintain the status quo. -_-
This is cracking stuff for a Canadian politics thread; well done guys :cheers:
I think the the fact that viper isn't even getting the support of Valmy, Republican of Republicans on this is somewhat telling.
Quote from: Viking on August 18, 2011, 03:49:31 PM
No, I am Viking. I belong to the only civilized people in the world to dominate it's country without ever having stolen it from anybody.
What gave you the impression that the Icelandic are civilized?
Quote from: viper37 on August 18, 2011, 03:29:56 PM
I'm not even talking about the forced assimilation of the French people outside of Quebec (mainly in Manitoba, and Ontario) following the Confederation, as these were technically crimes by the Canadians, not the British, even though we were a colony at the time.
Forced assimilation wasn't a crime, and really isn't today either.
As for Acadiens, their fate was inevitable. In times of war, the state can do as it pleases to ensure the safety of its territory.
Quote from: Viking on August 18, 2011, 03:49:31 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 18, 2011, 03:39:32 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 18, 2011, 03:38:30 PM
meh... if Civilized nations didn't conquer and destroy the Barbarous then world would consist almost exclusively of the Barbarous. Furthermore I will assert that none of the "First Nations" of Canada were the first nation to occupy the land and the many generations of previous civilizations occupying each land had been genocided by the present "first nation" (scare quotes this time). To dip into the fetid pool of post-modernism, I consider it a grossly hegemonic imposition of Eurocentricims to treat the American Indians as innocent naïfs without worldlyness nor an ability to take responsability for their actions. No culture ethnically cleansed by "Imperialist Anglo-Canadians"!!!!1111oneoneoen didn't ethnically cleanse and/or assimilate a previous one.
Fate, is that you?
No, I am Viking. I belong to the only civilized people in the world to dominate it's country without ever having stolen it from anybody.
:yeahright:
You belong to a people that steals peoples money and then drops ash on them.
Also, your attitude towards land, as if it can be 'stolen' is laughable.
Quote from: Valmy on August 18, 2011, 04:05:50 PM
The Acadians moved to Louisiana didn't they? No offense to Canada but they have alot more fun than you guys do.
They were scattered all across the 13 colonies, although many did eventually end up in Louisiana.
Quote from: Neil on August 18, 2011, 04:55:58 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 18, 2011, 03:49:31 PM
No, I am Viking. I belong to the only civilized people in the world to dominate it's country without ever having stolen it from anybody.
:yeahright:
You belong to a people that steals peoples money and then drops ash on them.
:lol:
Now this, this I like.
Quote from: Barrister on August 18, 2011, 09:33:44 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 18, 2011, 01:50:16 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 17, 2011, 09:30:28 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 17, 2011, 07:37:56 PM
Is the Winnipeg Jets logo supposed to be a stylized Hornet?
It is the RCAF Roundel, with a stylized CF-18 Hornet superimposed, but it is also made out to act as a compass rose (check out the two-tone effect on the jet) as a subtle nod to the ownership company, True North Sports and Entertainment.
Apparently the Jets are giving $1mil over the next 10 years to some military charities, presumably as part of getting permission to use the roundel.
Do you have to get permission to use a roundel or other government image? I mean, they can't be fraudulent, but that's a different thing. I thought they were public domain.
For that matter, does Northrop-Grumman own the rights to artistic recreations of F/A-18s (or GM, that of a Camaro)? Maybe they do. If so, that would explain why the outline is off a little bit (in addition to your explanation, anyway; but e.g. the tail section is if I'm not mistaken slightly wrong). But I could certainly see an F-86 Sabre in an air combat comic, had I lived in the 1950s and read books about the Korean War, and I see F-22s in comics today. Are they violating copyright to do that? Did TW need to arrange to use images of the Raptor in Green Lantern?
This is probably a basic pair of questions, but I've never really been much into IP law.
Those are some pretty basic questions. My knowledge of IP law doesn't go any further than a single IP class in law school, but I think I can answer that.
I believe the RCAF would own the trademark to the RCAF roundel (although being a Crown entity does complicate it somehow). You could use that image in a variety of means under fair use doctrine, but to wholeheartedly incorporate it into your for-profit corporation's own trademark? No way that's fair use.
Even if I'm wrong, I doubt very much you'd want to pick a fight with the RCAF in any event.
As for the F-18... yes I think they own the trademark rights to the image. I'm pretty sure an auto manufacturer owns the rights to the look of their own vehicle, so one company can't just go ahead and create a knock-off of another company's vehicle.
Comics are probably covered under fair use, as they are an artistic representation.
The fighter in the Jets logo does resemble the CF-18, but I have read they deliberately did not want it to be a precise copy of any fighter that Canada has flown, or will ever flow, just to keep it more timeless.
Cool. Yeah, I never even took
one IP law class. You are: expert. :P
Quote from: JacobFor the car images I'm pretty sure GM owns the image of the Camaro, for example. Video games license the car images as necessary, or alternately go through a fairly thorough process of making "close enough, but nonetheless different" vehicles.
I was pretty sure that was the case for automobiles (e.g., I know that's why some obvious cars were missing in games from the Gran Turismo franchise, even though in some cases I'm not sure which way the money flowed for the licensing agreements). Presumably that would apply to aircraft as well, although as Beeb says military aircraft portrayed artistically in a military operation may fall under an exception, and likely actual cars purchased to do actual stunts might as well. I mean, I doubt the producers of Black Hawk Down paid Sikorsky or American Motors (beyond what they paid for actual Black Hawks and Humvees). And surely the producers of Dr. Strangelove did not seek out Boeing's approval (well, maybe they did--while their shit did indeed break, Boeing probably didn't make that part, and Strangelove is still a pretty good advertisement for the effectiveness of the Stratofortress :hmm: ).
So it's maybe a little dissonant that you need to license the images of objects for a video game, when Stanley Kubrick need not for an equally fanciful, equally profit-driven venture.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 18, 2011, 05:10:19 PM
I was pretty sure that was the case for automobiles (e.g., I know that's why some obvious cars were missing in games from the Gran Turismo franchise, even though in some cases I'm not sure which way the money flowed for the licensing agreements). Presumably that would apply to aircraft as well, although military aircraft portrayed in a military operation may fall under an exception, and perhaps actual cars purchased to do actual stunts might as well. Did the producers of Black Hawk Down pay Sikorsky and American Motors? Surely the producers of Dr. Strangelove did not seek out Boeing's approval (well, maybe they did--while their shit did indeed break, Boeing probably didn't make that part, and Strangelove is still a pretty good advertisement for the effectiveness of the Stratofortress :hmm: ).
Movies / tv / books etc. is all fair use. You can hardly make a movie or tv show without displaying any number of manufactured products.
Even in a computer game... I suppose you could try and argue fair use there too, but for the most part that's a fight you don't want to get involved in.
Quote from: Barrister on August 18, 2011, 05:15:31 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 18, 2011, 05:10:19 PM
I was pretty sure that was the case for automobiles (e.g., I know that's why some obvious cars were missing in games from the Gran Turismo franchise, even though in some cases I'm not sure which way the money flowed for the licensing agreements). Presumably that would apply to aircraft as well, although military aircraft portrayed in a military operation may fall under an exception, and perhaps actual cars purchased to do actual stunts might as well. Did the producers of Black Hawk Down pay Sikorsky and American Motors? Surely the producers of Dr. Strangelove did not seek out Boeing's approval (well, maybe they did--while their shit did indeed break, Boeing probably didn't make that part, and Strangelove is still a pretty good advertisement for the effectiveness of the Stratofortress :hmm: ).
Movies / tv / books etc. is all fair use. You can hardly make a movie or tv show without displaying any number of manufactured products.
Even in a computer game... I suppose you could try and argue fair use there too, but for the most part that's a fight you don't want to get involved in.
I thought maybe it was a test of "prominent display," perhaps. So, say, the make and model of all the cars in New York in Independence Day don't really matter, they're not the focus, whereas in Strangelove the B-52 is presented as one sexy piece of deterrence.
Quote from: Barrister on August 18, 2011, 04:01:49 PM
Good Queen Liz isn't Queen because of some right of conquest. She is Queen because we chose her ancestors to be the sovereign, and because we continue to choose to have them as our sovereign.
I really think you should read some history before you make these kinds of pronouncements, because they are silly.
The crown of the UK (and therefor Canada) has descended from The Conquest by blood. Various acts have decided which of the blood descendents of William the Conqueror took the throne, because of some silly belief that Hod favored sons over smarts, but nobody chose Elizabeth II's ancestors out of a crowd and made them the sovereigns.
The House of Hanover came to the throne because Electress Sophia of Hanover was the grand-daughter of James I. James I inherited the crown because he was a great-great grandchild of Henry VI, who came to the throne by right of conquest in reality, but in law because he was the great-great-great-grandson of Edward III, who was the great-something of William I.
"We" didn't chose anything. Royals are as silly a concept as there is. Barring lawyers.
Quote from: grumbler on August 18, 2011, 06:33:57 PM
"We" didn't chose anything.
We didn't, but the MPs did.
QuoteRoyals are as silly a concept as there is.
No more silly than elections.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 18, 2011, 04:39:12 PM
I think the the fact that viper isn't even getting the support of Valmy, Republican of Republicans on this is somewhat telling.
Monarchs as a national mascot of sorts is kind of cute. They remind me of Bevo.
The Monarchy in Britain itself is shit with all the money and stuff it controls but I guess it is something that keeps Scotland and Wales and England together.
But in Canada it is absolutely toothless and Canada might as well be a Republic. It is sort of like declaring yourself a Monarchy because Jesus is your king or something. The only acceptable Monarchy is where there is no monarch present.
Quote from: grumbler on August 18, 2011, 06:33:57 PM
The crown of the UK (and therefor Canada) has descended from The Conquest by blood.
From an even more ancient conquest. The Crown of the UK (and probably most of the population of the UK by now...) is descended from Cerdic the Saxon from Henry I's wife Matilda I believe.
Quote from: Valmy on August 18, 2011, 09:20:03 PM
From an even more ancient conquest. The Crown of the UK (and probably most of the population of the UK by now...) is descended from Cerdic the Saxon from Henry I's wife Matilda I believe.
Tcha! All these parvenus are laughable. Britain is a province of Rome. There simply has been a 1600 years gap in tenure.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on August 18, 2011, 09:24:17 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 18, 2011, 09:20:03 PM
From an even more ancient conquest. The Crown of the UK (and probably most of the population of the UK by now...) is descended from Cerdic the Saxon from Henry I's wife Matilda I believe.
Tcha! All these parvenus are laughable. Britain is a province of Rome. There simply has been a 1600 years gap in tenure.
The line of emperors has been broken, and Rome doesn't even rule Italy anymore.
Quote from: viper37 on August 17, 2011, 12:30:28 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 17, 2011, 09:02:19 AM
Canada is no longer a colony, but she is, however, still a Monarchy.
with a foreign Monarch, from wich we should seek to distance ourself. You can't be truly independant if your head of state is foreign. I now understand better why English Canadians see Quebec's independance with such a bad idea. They themselves can't get over the fact that Canada is a seperate nation from England and need to re-assess their attachment to the crown at every opportunity. For fuck sake, what's next? The Royal Post Corporation? The Royal Canadian National Bank?
If the Canadian army corps can't existe without reminding everyone that they are really the Queen's army, might as well not have a distinct army and merge it back with the British Empire. They have that military tradition wich seem so important (curious that no soldier ever talked about it when you asked them what kind of problems they face or what they need to be done differently).
I'm pretty sure all those veterans without pension or without decent care will feel better now that they are part of the Royal army :)
I mean, how can it not solve all the problems the Canadian Armed Forces faces? They will have tradition now :) They will be anchored to the past and everyone will be constantly reminded we are still a British Colony, a part of their mighty Empire, governed by a foreign ruler.
I believe a country should look to the future, not constantly look at the past. I tought the Conservatives clearly understood that, but it seems they really don't grasp something that simple.
It would much better for the UK, the Dominions and the world if they were all merged into one country. :contract:
Same language, nearly identical parliamentary systems of government, nearly identical culture. There's no point in them being separate countries, distance doesn't mean anything anymore.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 18, 2011, 09:47:04 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 17, 2011, 12:30:28 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 17, 2011, 09:02:19 AM
Canada is no longer a colony, but she is, however, still a Monarchy.
with a foreign Monarch, from wich we should seek to distance ourself. You can't be truly independant if your head of state is foreign. I now understand better why English Canadians see Quebec's independance with such a bad idea. They themselves can't get over the fact that Canada is a seperate nation from England and need to re-assess their attachment to the crown at every opportunity. For fuck sake, what's next? The Royal Post Corporation? The Royal Canadian National Bank?
If the Canadian army corps can't existe without reminding everyone that they are really the Queen's army, might as well not have a distinct army and merge it back with the British Empire. They have that military tradition wich seem so important (curious that no soldier ever talked about it when you asked them what kind of problems they face or what they need to be done differently).
I'm pretty sure all those veterans without pension or without decent care will feel better now that they are part of the Royal army :)
I mean, how can it not solve all the problems the Canadian Armed Forces faces? They will have tradition now :) They will be anchored to the past and everyone will be constantly reminded we are still a British Colony, a part of their mighty Empire, governed by a foreign ruler.
I believe a country should look to the future, not constantly look at the past. I tought the Conservatives clearly understood that, but it seems they really don't grasp something that simple.
It would much better for the UK, the Dominions and the world if they were all merged into one country. :contract:
Same language, nearly identical parliamentary systems of government, nearly identical culture. There's no point in them being separate countries, distance doesn't mean anything anymore.
Slight 'problem' there Tim.
India.
If you were going to merge the Empire together, you could either merge only the "white" parts of it, like Canada, and Australia, and accept that the Empire was fundamentally racist, or you could merge all of it and accept that as the most populous part by far that India would dominate the whole enterprise.
The British Empire was the most enlightened and noble empire the earth had seen to that point, but it was still fundamentally at odds with modern liberal principles.
... and what that means is that modern liberal principles are wrong, because the Empire sure as hell wasn't.
You can keep India out for being fucking poor.
Instead, have the United States. :)
Or both. I believe ethnic Anglos outnumber any ethnicity on the subcontinent. We're one of the most populous peoples in the world, short of the Han. Even if you only count biological Anglos, it's like 300 million, and if you count cultural Anglos, it's more than 400 million.
Yes, obviously, I'm counting the Scots and Irish, who are just Anglos with obnoxious accents, like myself, and would do well to stop pretending they aren't.
I didn't realize India was a Dominion for a short time before getting independence. However, Indian culture, language and political history are obviously radically different from the other dominions. South Africa's culture and political history are likewise distinct. I was speaking of the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 18, 2011, 10:27:52 PM
You can keep India out for being fucking poor.
Instead, have the United States. :)
I would not be opposed to an Anglo-American Confederation, depending on how the governmental system would be hashed out.
Quote from: Valmy on August 18, 2011, 09:20:03 PM
Quote from: grumbler on August 18, 2011, 06:33:57 PM
The crown of the UK (and therefor Canada) has descended from The Conquest by blood.
From an even more ancient conquest. The Crown of the UK (and probably most of the population of the UK by now...) is descended from Cerdic the Saxon from Henry I's wife Matilda I believe.
Doesn't the House of Windsor claim to be directly descended from Odin?
Quote from: Barrister on August 18, 2011, 03:22:51 PM
No.
We signed treaties (which the natives are still very keen on us following, BTW) where they agreed to move into reserations that were already on their traditional land. The whole forced migration of entire tribes is a very American phenomenon.
In America we see subhuman, mongoloidal pieces of refuse wearing animal feces smeared on their face and living in tents and scalping people for a good time and we say "yeah, we're white and have guns we aren't going to have this bullshit around here" and we take care of the fucking problems.
Canadians prove they are cut from a different cloth (perhaps silk or velvet) and embrace them and 200 years later suck the cock of every alcoholic dumbfuck native that lives on a reservation on a pile of welfare money with QE2's face on it.
Damn! You fall of the wagon or something?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 18, 2011, 10:46:49 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 18, 2011, 03:22:51 PM
No.
We signed treaties (which the natives are still very keen on us following, BTW) where they agreed to move into reserations that were already on their traditional land. The whole forced migration of entire tribes is a very American phenomenon.
In America we see subhuman, mongoloidal pieces of refuse wearing animal feces smeared on their face and living in tents and scalping people for a good time and we say "yeah, we're white and have guns we aren't going to have this bullshit around here" and we take care of the fucking problems.
Canadians prove they are cut from a different cloth (perhaps silk or velvet) and embrace them and 200 years later suck the cock of every alcoholic dumbfuck native that lives on a reservation on a pile of welfare money with QE2's face on it.
Fuck you Otto.
I know, and am friends with, quite a few First Nations (or Indian if you will) people. The fact you would call them "subhuman, mongoloidal pieces of refuse" speaks poorly of you, not them.
I call Slargos on his racist shit, and I'll call you on it.
Unlike Slargos, Otto is clearly trolling and/or belligerently drunk.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 18, 2011, 10:31:04 PM
I didn't realize India was a Dominion for a short time before getting independence. However, Indian culture, language and political history are obviously radically different from the other dominions. South Africa's culture and political history are likewise distinct. I was speaking of the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Tell me - what possible justification do you have for classifying the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada together, other than on "racial" lines?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 18, 2011, 10:32:54 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 18, 2011, 10:27:52 PM
You can keep India out for being fucking poor.
Instead, have the United States. :)
I would not be opposed to an Anglo-American Confederation, depending on how the governmental system would be hashed out.
Ours.
There, done!
Quote from: Barrister on August 18, 2011, 11:36:31 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 18, 2011, 10:31:04 PM
I didn't realize India was a Dominion for a short time before getting independence. However, Indian culture, language and political history are obviously radically different from the other dominions. South Africa's culture and political history are likewise distinct. I was speaking of the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Tell me - what possible justification do you have for classifying the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada together, other than on "racial" lines?
I already mentioned them. Language, Culture and Political History. Isn't New Zealand half aborigine?
They are predominately English speaking countries, whose political, religious/philosophical and popular culture are virtually identical.
Indians don't speak English as a native language, and less then 10% speak it at all. The culture (religious, political, and popular) is vastly different from the aforementioned countries, being based on a completely different historical foundation.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 18, 2011, 11:58:50 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 18, 2011, 10:32:54 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 18, 2011, 10:27:52 PM
You can keep India out for being fucking poor.
Instead, have the United States. :)
I would not be opposed to an Anglo-American Confederation, depending on how the governmental system would be hashed out.
Ours.
There, done!
If we're designing a new democratic government from scratch I think we can do a little better than what we or the British have right now.
Quote from: Barrister on August 18, 2011, 11:36:31 PM
Tell me - what possible justification do you have for classifying the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada together, other than on "racial" lines?
They get along with each other. India is not so friendly.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 19, 2011, 12:12:32 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 18, 2011, 11:58:50 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 18, 2011, 10:32:54 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 18, 2011, 10:27:52 PM
You can keep India out for being fucking poor.
Instead, have the United States. :)
I would not be opposed to an Anglo-American Confederation, depending on how the governmental system would be hashed out.
Ours.
There, done!
If we're designing a new democratic government from scratch I think we can do a little better than what we or the British have right now.
Disagree. The Westminster system is the ultimate democratic system devised to date.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 18, 2011, 10:46:49 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 18, 2011, 03:22:51 PM
No.
We signed treaties (which the natives are still very keen on us following, BTW) where they agreed to move into reserations that were already on their traditional land. The whole forced migration of entire tribes is a very American phenomenon.
In America we see subhuman, mongoloidal pieces of refuse wearing animal feces smeared on their face and living in tents and scalping people for a good time and we say "yeah, we're white and have guns we aren't going to have this bullshit around here" and we take care of the fucking problems.
Canadians prove they are cut from a different cloth (perhaps silk or velvet) and embrace them and 200 years later suck the cock of every alcoholic dumbfuck native that lives on a reservation on a pile of welfare money with QE2's face on it.
What problem have we taken care of in respect of for Texans? :huh:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 18, 2011, 10:52:24 PM
Damn! You fall of the wagon or something?
Um, I'm not an alcoholic so I've definitely not "fallen off the wagon." Nor was I drunk last night when I posted.
Let's just say sometimes people start spouting off crazy Canadian nationalist bullshit like Barrister does and has done in many threads, so I might as well play up to his portrayal of us as the worst country in the world full of mindless savages that delight in racism and destroying native Americans.
Just because Barrister hides behind moderate words that doesn't hide the immoderate Canadian supremacism (first time in history that phrase has been used) in his posts.
You're not the worst country in the world. Even if you rebelled against your king, it's not like you permanently wiped out the monarchy. You're better than any of the other G8 countries except for the UK, Canada and Japan.
Quote from: Neil on August 19, 2011, 07:08:23 AM
You're not the worst country in the world. Even if you rebelled against your king, it's not like you permanently wiped out the monarchy. You're better than any of the other G8 countries except for the UK, Canada and Japan.
Obliviously Canada is. They took down paintings by a Quebeci artist and replaced them with the portraits of the Head of State.
Pellan's paintings aren't very good anyways, so no big loss. If he wasn't from Quebec, it wouldn't be a story.
If Quebec wants more input, they should elect more Conservatives.
Quote from: Neil on August 19, 2011, 08:18:51 AM
Pellan's paintings aren't very good anyways, so no big loss. If he wasn't from Quebec, it wouldn't be a story.
If Quebec wants more input, they should elect more Conservatives.
I don't see why it's story as is.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 19, 2011, 08:26:45 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 19, 2011, 08:18:51 AM
Pellan's paintings aren't very good anyways, so no big loss. If he wasn't from Quebec, it wouldn't be a story.
If Quebec wants more input, they should elect more Conservatives.
I don't see why it's story as is.
Because the left-wing loons at the CBC feel that if the Tories don't show enough appreciation for shitty Quebec artists, Quebec might separate.
Quote from: Neil on August 19, 2011, 07:08:23 AM
You're not the worst country in the world. Even if you rebelled against your king, it's not like you permanently wiped out the monarchy. You're better than any of the other G8 countries except for the UK, Canada and Japan.
I've already explained in the past that the only rightful British King was living in exile because the people of Great Britain had already rebelled against their rightful King several generations prior. The moment the Stuarts were driven from the throne and replaced with illegitimate pretenders by Parliament
which has no right to decide on succession of a King the King of the United Kingdom was no King at all, and our rebellion was against a pretender with a crown of clay.
The only reason we chose the rather powerless George III as the symbol of evil is because we denied Parliament had any authority over us. The only authority that was over our representatives was the King and his Governors and it was through them Parliament's policies were being enacted.
Ergo George III being subject to a Parliament made him a tyrant.
However it was not like the crazy fucker was not big supporter of Parliament's American policies.
Quote from: Valmy on August 18, 2011, 01:50:22 PM
Yet it sounds like you do. They are celebrities. They are glamorous. There is nothing really to get.
it's that thing about where you apparently feel good just to see someone from a distance... I've met a few of the local (Quebec) stars over time, travelling in Montreal & Quebec city, as well as those living around here, I've never felt different from it...
Quote from: Palisadoes on August 18, 2011, 03:13:18 PM
"Previous inhabitants" being the First Nations? So what are you, as a Quebecer, complaining about? By your own "logic" you shouldn't be there either.
there were no indians in the St-Lawrence valley when Champlain came to build Quebec city in 1608.
Quote from: Viking on August 18, 2011, 03:38:30 PM
meh... if Civilized nations didn't conquer and destroy the Barbarous then world would consist almost exclusively of the Barbarous. Furthermore I will assert that none of the "First Nations" of Canada were the first nation to occupy the land and the many generations of previous civilizations occupying each land had been genocided by the present "first nation" (scare quotes this time). To dip into the fetid pool of post-modernism, I consider it a grossly hegemonic imposition of Eurocentricims to treat the American Indians as innocent naïfs without worldlyness nor an ability to take responsability for their actions. No culture ethnically cleansed by "Imperialist Anglo-Canadians"!!!!1111oneoneoen didn't ethnically cleanse and/or assimilate a previous one.
it sure is a good reason to deport French Colonists. Oh, they were inferior, let's deport them.
Quote from: viper37 on August 19, 2011, 08:58:04 AM
it's that thing about where you apparently feel good just to see someone from a distance... I've met a few of the local (Quebec) stars over time, travelling in Montreal & Quebec city, as well as those living around here, I've never felt different from it...
Why go see anything? Why go to an art museum you can just see the paintings online? Why go tour a historical site you can just see pictures of it?
Quote from: Neil on August 19, 2011, 08:36:12 AM
Because the left-wing loons at the CBC feel that if the Tories don't show enough appreciation for shitty Quebec artists, Quebec might separate.
he could have replaced it with another Canadian artist. Supposedly, you guys have a Canadian culture. It would have been nice to see it.
But apparently, the Queen is more popular than any Canadian artist to decorate the halls. It's a little weird from a people insisting they are a realy country with their own culture.
Quote from: viper37 on August 19, 2011, 09:00:06 AM
it sure is a good reason to deport French Colonists. Oh, they were inferior, let's deport them.
They were probably deported because they were going to be a security risk. But come on this was 18th Century white people in North America. Finding land to settle in was no big deal.
Quote from: viper37 on August 19, 2011, 09:01:50 AM
But apparently, the Queen is more popular than any Canadian artist to decorate the halls. It's a little weird from a people insisting they are a realy country with their own culture.
So everytime somebody in the US puts up a picture of the President it means we have no culture?
I mean we don't but still...
Quote from: viper37 on August 19, 2011, 09:01:50 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 19, 2011, 08:36:12 AM
Because the left-wing loons at the CBC feel that if the Tories don't show enough appreciation for shitty Quebec artists, Quebec might separate.
he could have replaced it with another Canadian artist. Supposedly, you guys have a Canadian culture. It would have been nice to see it.
But apparently, the Queen is more popular than any Canadian artist to decorate the halls. It's a little weird from a people insisting they are a realy country with their own culture.
replacing aquebec artist with a anglo one? you insane?
Quote from: Valmy on August 19, 2011, 09:01:40 AM
Why go see anything? Why go to an art museum you can just see the paintings online? Why go tour a historical site you can just see pictures of it?
For the art musuem, I keep asking myself why people want to go there, it's not something I get either. The internet is filled with pictures of paintings or beautiful photographs. And you can save them on your computer, watch them whenever you want.
The historical site, I understand. Usually, there are activities, not just watching, and you have guides that will explain the stuff to you in much more details.
Also, on a site like Louisbourg, you can eat the traditional food the French soldiers and peasants living there would have eaten in the 18th century. I keep vivid memories of this.
But seeing a "star"?
I remember a sweepstake in a store once. 1st price: Meet Claudia Schiffer, have an autograph, take a picture with her. 2nd price: win all of what you've bought in the store that day.
I was happy to be 2nd...
Quote from: HVC on August 19, 2011, 09:06:23 AM
replacing aquebec artist with a anglo one? you insane?
No. It would have went nicely in the local media, on top of it. Some moron would have complained, seen this as an attack on all of Quebec, that's a given.
But it would have faded nicely.
But now... the Queen... Wtf??
Quote from: Valmy on August 19, 2011, 09:05:31 AM
So everytime somebody in the US puts up a picture of the President it means we have no culture?
I mean we don't but still...
Do you keep a portrait of the President in all of your houses?
When you rotate a gallery, in a public office, do you replace it with pictures of the current President?
Quote from: viper37 on August 19, 2011, 09:10:46 AM
Do you keep a portrait of the President in all of your houses?
When you rotate a gallery, in a public office, do you replace it with pictures of the current President?
Well...maybe if it was that famous painting of JFK.
Quote from: Valmy on August 19, 2011, 09:12:54 AM
Quote from: viper37 on August 19, 2011, 09:10:46 AM
Do you keep a portrait of the President in all of your houses?
When you rotate a gallery, in a public office, do you replace it with pictures of the current President?
Well...maybe if it was that famous painting of JFK.
Any of you keep wall paintings of Andrew Jackson? Nixon?
Quote from: viper37 on August 19, 2011, 09:07:42 AM
For the art musuem, I keep asking myself why people want to go there, it's not something I get either. The internet is filled with pictures of paintings or beautiful photographs. And you can save them on your computer, watch them whenever you want.
The historical site, I understand. Usually, there are activities, not just watching, and you have guides that will explain the stuff to you in much more details.
Also, on a site like Louisbourg, you can eat the traditional food the French soldiers and peasants living there would have eaten in the 18th century. I keep vivid memories of this.
But seeing a "star"?
I remember a sweepstake in a store once. 1st price: Meet Claudia Schiffer, have an autograph, take a picture with her. 2nd price: win all of what you've bought in the store that day.
I was happy to be 2nd...
Well I guess I just love seeing it in the flesh it is way different than seeing it on TV or on your computer. If something is going on and some famous person is in Austin I will strongly consider going to check it out. Likewise when I was in Rome I went to see the Pope because, hey, I am not Catholic or even like the idea of supreme religious authorities but it was just cool...and there were a bunch of other weird things about that day to. I also remember when I was visiting my buddy in Boston and we went by them filming Good Will Hunting, we didn't know what it was at the time naturally, but I will always remember seeing the actors from the film just hanging around. Likewise walking the lines of Jackson's Corps at the Second Manasas Battle field was pretty awesome even though, you know, it is just a forest with a fence.
Quote from: viper37 on August 19, 2011, 09:17:19 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 19, 2011, 09:12:54 AM
Quote from: viper37 on August 19, 2011, 09:10:46 AM
Do you keep a portrait of the President in all of your houses?
When you rotate a gallery, in a public office, do you replace it with pictures of the current President?
Well...maybe if it was that famous painting of JFK.
Any of you keep wall paintings of Andrew Jackson? Nixon?
Actually I do have a wall painting of a former President.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 19, 2011, 07:03:11 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 18, 2011, 10:52:24 PM
Damn! You fall of the wagon or something?
Um, I'm not an alcoholic so I've definitely not "fallen off the wagon." Nor was I drunk last night when I posted.
Let's just say sometimes people start spouting off crazy Canadian nationalist bullshit like Barrister does and has done in many threads, so I might as well play up to his portrayal of us as the worst country in the world full of mindless savages that delight in racism and destroying native Americans.
Just because Barrister hides behind moderate words that doesn't hide the immoderate Canadian supremacism (first time in history that phrase has been used) in his posts.
I'm staunchy pro-Canadian :Canuck: but (unlike others in this country) I never use that as an excuse to be anti-US. I love America. :cool:
Quote from: viper37 on August 19, 2011, 09:17:19 AM
Any of you keep wall paintings of Andrew Jackson? Nixon?
If I had an original wall painting of some President. Especially if it was Andrew Jackson and painted during his lifetime that would be pretty awesome.
Quote from: viper37 on August 19, 2011, 08:59:00 AM
Quote from: Palisadoes on August 18, 2011, 03:13:18 PM
"Previous inhabitants" being the First Nations? So what are you, as a Quebecer, complaining about? By your own "logic" you shouldn't be there either.
there were no indians in the St-Lawrence valley when Champlain came to build Quebec city in 1608.
Who gave him the name "Quebec" if there were no Indians there?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg855.imageshack.us%2Fimg855%2F1025%2Fsamueldechamplainarrive.jpg&hash=aedbe1d4a56342a1dbd28404c5c50f067d40ee08) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/855/samueldechamplainarrive.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
Painting showing the arrival of Samuel de Champlain on the future site of Quebec City, 1608
I wonder who those guys are suppose to be.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 19, 2011, 08:47:52 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 19, 2011, 07:08:23 AM
You're not the worst country in the world. Even if you rebelled against your king, it's not like you permanently wiped out the monarchy. You're better than any of the other G8 countries except for the UK, Canada and Japan.
I've already explained in the past that the only rightful British King was living in exile because the people of Great Britain had already rebelled against their rightful King several generations prior. The moment the Stuarts were driven from the throne and replaced with illegitimate pretenders by Parliament which has no right to decide on succession of a King the King of the United Kingdom was no King at all, and our rebellion was against a pretender with a crown of clay.
So the US justified the revolution based on Jacobite grounds? :wacko:
Quote from: Razgovory on August 19, 2011, 09:25:43 AM
I wonder who those guys are suppose to be.
Their headdresses make them look like Lakotas. That's weird.
Quote from: viper37 on August 19, 2011, 08:59:00 AM
there were no indians in the St-Lawrence valley when Champlain came to build Quebec city in 1608.
:lol:
That's because it was an active battleground at the time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Lawrence_Iroquoians#The_demise_of_the_St._Lawrence_Iroquoians
It's like saying "when the aliens landed in Flanders in 1917, the area they landed in was completely uninhabited". :D
Quote from: Barrister on August 19, 2011, 09:26:20 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 19, 2011, 08:47:52 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 19, 2011, 07:08:23 AM
You're not the worst country in the world. Even if you rebelled against your king, it's not like you permanently wiped out the monarchy. You're better than any of the other G8 countries except for the UK, Canada and Japan.
I've already explained in the past that the only rightful British King was living in exile because the people of Great Britain had already rebelled against their rightful King several generations prior. The moment the Stuarts were driven from the throne and replaced with illegitimate pretenders by Parliament which has no right to decide on succession of a King the King of the United Kingdom was no King at all, and our rebellion was against a pretender with a crown of clay.
So the US justified the revolution based on Jacobite grounds? :wacko:
Yeah, that was pretty bizarre.
Quote from: Barrister on August 19, 2011, 09:26:20 AM
So the US justified the revolution based on Jacobite grounds? :wacko:
Of course not.
I say that legally we had no legitimate ties to the United Kingdom the moment James II was driven off the throne. Arguably the earliest proprietor colonies where outside the demesne of any King. However as they were converted to Royal colonies they rightly fell under the rule of the British monarch, when the monarchy was ended and replaced with a usurpatory reign there was no longer any true legal association. The Revolution just ended the legal fiction that had been perpetrated since 1688 when the King was deposed and a Dutch usurper was put on the throne.
I certainly would not argue the Founding Fathers advocated this argument, most of them were true anti-monarchical scum. However in this instance they happened to be excused because the monarch they had tacitly accepted as legitimate prior to the Revolution was no more a King than a street walker.
Quote from: LaCroix on August 16, 2011, 12:10:58 PM
i support the name change, if only to piss off the french quebecois :)
I support too the name change, hoping it will piss the french Québécois.
Quote from: Rex Francorum on August 19, 2011, 12:30:22 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on August 16, 2011, 12:10:58 PM
i support the name change, if only to piss off the french quebecois :)
I support too the name change, hoping it will piss the french Québécois.
They strike me as sort of people who are in a perpetual state of outrage.
Quote from: Valmy on August 19, 2011, 12:36:07 PM
Quote from: Rex Francorum on August 19, 2011, 12:30:22 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on August 16, 2011, 12:10:58 PM
i support the name change, if only to piss off the french quebecois :)
I support too the name change, hoping it will piss the french Québécois.
They strike me as sort of people who are in a perpetual state of outrage.
To be fair to Quebeckers, I think it's only their politicians in a perpetual state of outrage. The Quebeckers I know (who, admittedly, have generally all moved out west at some point) are pretty blase about these kinds of issues.
Quote from: viper37 on August 19, 2011, 09:07:42 AM
For the art musuem, I keep asking myself why people want to go there, it's not something I get either. The internet is filled with pictures of paintings or beautiful photographs. And you can save them on your computer, watch them whenever you want.
I think you've managed to out do, Jos.
Quote from: Valmy on August 19, 2011, 12:36:07 PM
Quote from: Rex Francorum on August 19, 2011, 12:30:22 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on August 16, 2011, 12:10:58 PM
i support the name change, if only to piss off the french quebecois :)
I support too the name change, hoping it will piss the french Québécois.
They strike me as sort of people who are in a perpetual state of outrage.
:contract:
Quote from: Rex Francorum on August 19, 2011, 12:30:22 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on August 16, 2011, 12:10:58 PM
i support the name change, if only to piss off the french quebecois :)
I support too the name change, hoping it will piss the french Québécois.
I assume the people who would be pissed off about this are the ones already in your camp.
I'm outrage at the fact that you think that I am consistently outraged at everything. Damn Anglos.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 19, 2011, 01:39:39 PM
I'm outrage at the fact that you think that I am consistently outraged at everything. Damn Anglos.
:lol:
Quote from: viper37 on August 19, 2011, 09:10:46 AM
Do you keep a portrait of the President in all of your houses?[/quote]
Are you saying that the government of Canada took all copies of paintings by this Quebecois artist you've been going on about out of the homes of individual citizens and replaced them with portraits of the Queen? Yeah, I'd be opposed to that, too. But I thought they just replaced them in, you know, government buildings.
Quote
When you rotate a gallery, in a public office, do you replace it with pictures of the current President?
Uh, yeah, actually, in federal government offices, it's common to have a portrait of the current President. I'd think that in most nations, it's common to have a portrait of the head of state. That's why we Americans can't see why you think Canada should be an exception.
Quote from: viper37 on August 19, 2011, 09:00:06 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 18, 2011, 03:38:30 PM
meh... if Civilized nations didn't conquer and destroy the Barbarous then world would consist almost exclusively of the Barbarous. Furthermore I will assert that none of the "First Nations" of Canada were the first nation to occupy the land and the many generations of previous civilizations occupying each land had been genocided by the present "first nation" (scare quotes this time). To dip into the fetid pool of post-modernism, I consider it a grossly hegemonic imposition of Eurocentricims to treat the American Indians as innocent naïfs without worldlyness nor an ability to take responsability for their actions. No culture ethnically cleansed by "Imperialist Anglo-Canadians"!!!!1111oneoneoen didn't ethnically cleanse and/or assimilate a previous one.
it sure is a good reason to deport French Colonists. Oh, they were inferior, let's deport them.
I said no such thing. If you want to attack a strawman don't pin my name on him. I'm not suggesting anybody is inferior, I'm asserting that nobody is morally superior. No people that has survived until modernity can possibly claim to have clean hands. Don't make shit up like this, it only make you look pathetic.
Quote from: Malthus on August 19, 2011, 09:34:57 AM
It's like saying "when the aliens landed in Flanders in 1917, the area they landed in was completely uninhabited". :D
That's not quite apt. There was no war being waged: the St. Lawrence Iroquoians were gone, i.e., the conflicts were over, the Iroquoians were either dead or incorporated into other groups. No trace of them remained. Your hypothetical aliens could not have said the same of Flanders.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 19, 2011, 09:25:43 AM
Painting showing the arrival of Samuel de Champlain on the future site of Quebec City, 1608
Using a ludicrously inaccurate
1908 painting reimagining what might have happened in 1608 as a source bars you from ever mocking again crazy canuck's quoting of a novel as a source.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 19, 2011, 10:30:30 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 19, 2011, 09:25:43 AM
Painting showing the arrival of Samuel de Champlain on the future site of Quebec City, 1608
Using a ludicrously inaccurate 1908 painting reimagining what might have happened in 1608 as a source bars you from ever mocking again crazy canuck's quoting of a novel as a source.
Why does the city retain it's Indian name?
The city got a possibly Algonkian name - as opposed to the Iroquoian name Stadaconé/Stadaconna in use during Jacques Cartier's time for the exact same place - because Samuel de Champlain used Native contacts downriver to learn about the Saint-Lawrence river. Why it stuck, as opposed to Montreal, where other native appelations didn't, probably has to do with the fact that it looks like, and sounds like, many Normandy toponyms (Caudebec, Briquebec).
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 20, 2011, 07:41:33 AM
The city got a possibly Algonkian name - as opposed to the Iroquoian name Stadaconé/Stadaconna in use during Jacques Cartier's time for the exact same place - because Samuel de Champlain used Native contacts downriver to learn about the Saint-Lawrence river. Why it stuck, as opposed to Montreal, where other native appelations didn't, probably has to do with the fact that it looks like, and sounds like, many Normandy toponyms (Caudebec, Briquebec).
Were there Algonkian people living in what is now Quebec?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 20, 2011, 07:45:28 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 20, 2011, 07:41:33 AM
The city got a possibly Algonkian name - as opposed to the Iroquoian name Stadaconé/Stadaconna in use during Jacques Cartier's time for the exact same place - because Samuel de Champlain used Native contacts downriver to learn about the Saint-Lawrence river. Why it stuck, as opposed to Montreal, where other native appelations didn't, probably has to do with the fact that it looks like, and sounds like, many Normandy toponyms (Caudebec, Briquebec).
Were there Algonkian people living in what is now Quebec?
No. The Algonquin were usually on the Southshore of the St-Lawrence.
I guess this will create jobs and stop crime? :confused: wow millions of dollars to re-brand something that doesn't need to be re-branded... and at the same time there are supposedly huge military cuts (something I approve of IF the cuts are not to any kind of soldier support like pensions, housing etc.... Army guys deserve lots of perks imho. We just don't need all the big ticket items that make the news. We should imho streamline the forces to a more search and rescue oriented group, than fighting, with all the freaky ass weather happening in recent times. that's defending the nation imo.
Quote from: Valmy on August 19, 2011, 12:36:07 PM
They strike me as sort of people who are in a perpetual state of outrage.
You should read Canadian newspapers to get things into perspective.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on August 20, 2011, 11:41:41 AM
I guess this will create jobs and stop crime? :confused: wow millions of dollars to re-brand something that doesn't need to be re-branded... and at the same time there are supposedly huge military cuts (something I approve of IF the cuts are not to any kind of soldier support like pensions, housing etc.... Army guys deserve lots of perks imho. We just don't need all the big ticket items that make the news. We should imho streamline the forces to a more search and rescue oriented group, than fighting, with all the freaky ass weather happening in recent times. that's defending the nation imo.
It isn't as if rebranding the RCN and RCAF is especially expensive. It's not like everything that the government does has to be about creating jobs and stopping crime. They waste more on the CBC every month than this is going to cost them.
Quote from: Valmy on August 19, 2011, 12:36:07 PM
Quote from: Rex Francorum on August 19, 2011, 12:30:22 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on August 16, 2011, 12:10:58 PM
i support the name change, if only to piss off the french quebecois :)
I support too the name change, hoping it will piss the french Québécois.
They strike me as sort of people who are in a perpetual state of outrage.
Some of them are. They have a contingent of rabble-rousers who are always trying to rile up the more sedate citizens.
Quote from: Malthus on August 19, 2011, 09:34:57 AM
Quote from: viper37 on August 19, 2011, 08:59:00 AM
there were no indians in the St-Lawrence valley when Champlain came to build Quebec city in 1608.
:lol:
That's because it was an active battleground at the time:
I know my history, thank you.
As your wiki article says, the place had been devoid of life for 75 years, as there were no trace of life.
It's totally different from, say, removing French colonists by force from an area and moving English colonists instead. Or burning all the farms of the St-Lawrence valley in hope of starving the people to make conquest easier. Or burning a city when you fail at conquering it the first time.
For the remainder of the summer, Wolfe's focus changed, possibly due to frustration with Montcalm's tactics. His troops, along with American Rangers, attacked and destroyed small French settlements along the St. Lawrence. An estimated 1,400 stone houses and manors were destroyed, and many colonists killed. The effort was likely an attempt to force Montcalm's army out of its fortifications, but was unsuccessful.[16] However, the attacks did reduce the amount of supplies available to the French, especially as the British navy, unable to control the St. Lawrence entirely, was successfully blockading the ports in France
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on August 20, 2011, 11:41:41 AM
We should imho streamline the forces to a more search and rescue oriented group, than fighting, with all the freaky ass weather happening in recent times. that's defending the nation imo.
so you want to turn the whole of the Canadian Military into the Coast Guard?
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 20, 2011, 03:48:15 PMso you want to turn the whole of the Canadian Military into the Coast Guard?
a coast guard with the world's best pension and housing benefits :D
Quote from: LaCroix on August 20, 2011, 04:38:51 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 20, 2011, 03:48:15 PMso you want to turn the whole of the Canadian Military into the Coast Guard?
a coast guard with the world's best pension and housing benefits :D
:lol:
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 20, 2011, 10:58:14 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 20, 2011, 07:45:28 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 20, 2011, 07:41:33 AM
The city got a possibly Algonkian name - as opposed to the Iroquoian name Stadaconé/Stadaconna in use during Jacques Cartier's time for the exact same place - because Samuel de Champlain used Native contacts downriver to learn about the Saint-Lawrence river. Why it stuck, as opposed to Montreal, where other native appelations didn't, probably has to do with the fact that it looks like, and sounds like, many Normandy toponyms (Caudebec, Briquebec).
Were there Algonkian people living in what is now Quebec?
No. The Algonquin were usually on the Southshore of the St-Lawrence.
Er, doesn't the South Shore of the St. Lawrence inside of Modern Quebec? Looking around the net it seems that Montreal was attacked by Mohawks in it's early history who seemed to feel that the area was there territory. So perhaps some of the Indians begged to differ that the land was abandoned. Also it seems there plenty of Innu (at least that's what Wikipedia called them), wandering about.
lol colony
Quote from: Razgovory on August 20, 2011, 06:06:03 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 20, 2011, 10:58:14 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 20, 2011, 07:45:28 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 20, 2011, 07:41:33 AM
The city got a possibly Algonkian name - as opposed to the Iroquoian name Stadaconé/Stadaconna in use during Jacques Cartier's time for the exact same place - because Samuel de Champlain used Native contacts downriver to learn about the Saint-Lawrence river. Why it stuck, as opposed to Montreal, where other native appelations didn't, probably has to do with the fact that it looks like, and sounds like, many Normandy toponyms (Caudebec, Briquebec).
Were there Algonkian people living in what is now Quebec?
No. The Algonquin were usually on the Southshore of the St-Lawrence.
Er, doesn't the South Shore of the St. Lawrence inside of Modern Quebec? Looking around the net it seems that Montreal was attacked by Mohawks in it's early history who seemed to feel that the area was there territory. So perhaps some of the Indians begged to differ that the land was abandoned. Also it seems there plenty of Innu (at least that's what Wikipedia called them), wandering about.
Oh you meant the Province? I thought you meant the city. My bad.
Then yes, they used to live here. Mostly on anything south-east side of the St-lawrence. I think the Mohawks were on the West-side.
Can some mod fix the typo in the thread title? It annoys me every time I look at it in the forum index.
Quote from: Martinus on August 21, 2011, 02:40:03 AM
Can some mod fix the typo in the thread title? It annoys me every time I look at it in the forum index.
given the way people treat you here, is that something you want to announce? ;)
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 20, 2011, 07:56:43 PM
Oh you meant the Province? I thought you meant the city. My bad.
Then yes, they used to live here. Mostly on anything south-east side of the St-lawrence. I think the Mohawks were on the West-side.
Yes. Previous attempts to settle on the site of Quebec had been abandoned because of the hostility of the natives. The land was temporarily empty because of the war and/or because the land was being allowed to lie fallow. Not that this means anything, since European and native concepts of land ownership were so far apart. The location was certainly more significant for the Europeans than the natives.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 19, 2011, 10:26:58 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 19, 2011, 09:34:57 AM
It's like saying "when the aliens landed in Flanders in 1917, the area they landed in was completely uninhabited". :D
That's not quite apt. There was no war being waged: the St. Lawrence Iroquoians were gone, i.e., the conflicts were over, the Iroquoians were either dead or incorporated into other groups. No trace of them remained. Your hypothetical aliens could not have said the same of Flanders.
They certainly could, if they landed in no man's land. Few Belgians stayed on to farm between shellings. :D
The notion that the St Lawrence valley was "terra nullius" when settled by France is no doubt comforting, and accurate in that no state level society claimed it, but rather misleading.
Quote from: Malthus on August 21, 2011, 03:11:27 PM
The notion that the St Lawrence valley was "terra nullius" when settled by France is no doubt comforting, and accurate in that no state level society claimed it, but rather misleading.
I probably missed the initial wording of the "debate" in this trainwreck of a thread, but I wasn't claiming the St. Lawrence valley was terra nullius - simply because I don't think this concept has any relevant meaning for the situation (or, really, in most historical situations). The point - or, my very limited point, at least - was not about finding emotional comfort, but rather understanding how the fact that land use in the St. Lawrence valley without the St. Lawrence Iroquoian being there, was much less conflictual that would eventually be the case, say, in New England or the Natchez region - in turn leading to profound consequences on issues of Native and French settlement and relationships (i.e., mission villages, absence of treaties, etc.).
To me, it looks like an effect to paint the French settlers as blameless innocents in contrast the blood thirsty Anglos. In other words, more whinny identity politics.
Considering the way you troll when anything related to Quebec comes up, I find it hard to care much about how these things look to you.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 21, 2011, 06:22:17 PM
Considering the way you troll when anything related to Quebec comes up, I find it hard to care much about how these things look to you.
:lol: I genuinely don't care about Quebec one way or the other. The extant of my knowledge comes from posters here. I know they have a language police and they are the most corrupt province of Canada. I away get the feeling they have a serious inferiority complex, but that's just the impression I get from the posters here.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2011, 06:38:15 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 21, 2011, 06:22:17 PM
Considering the way you troll when anything related to Quebec comes up, I find it hard to care much about how these things look to you.
:lol: I genuinely don't care about Quebec one way or the other. The extant of my knowledge comes from posters here. I know they have a language police and they are the most corrupt province of Canada. I away get the feeling they have a serious inferiority complex, but that's just the impression I get from the posters here.
It wasn't always a complex. It used to be reality.
Well I'm happy for you that you are no longer inferior. Still, these complaints about paintings being taken down are a bit tiresome. You guys kind of remind me of Southerners and their stupid confederate battle flag. "It's our culture and heritage!". That's not really fair. You guys aren't that bad, but it's a similar vibe.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2011, 06:17:48 PM
To me, it looks like an effect to paint the French settlers as blameless innocents in contrast the blood thirsty Anglos. In other words, more whinny identity politics.
the anglos
were pretty fucked up. the reaction to the injun attack on jamestown first comes to thought :D
Quote from: LaCroix on August 21, 2011, 08:35:26 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2011, 06:17:48 PM
To me, it looks like an effect to paint the French settlers as blameless innocents in contrast the blood thirsty Anglos. In other words, more whinny identity politics.
the anglos were pretty fucked up. the reaction to the injun attack on jamestown first comes to thought :D
The "Anglos" also starved some of my ancestors out of their homes. A million dead and a million fled. So yeah, lots of people have a beef with the Brits.
those damn """""anglos"""""
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 21, 2011, 06:42:13 PM
It wasn't always a complex. It used to be reality.
Why are you even acknowledging that imbecile? :rolleyes:
G.
No comments...
But do send your brother our way - we'll find a use for him.
G.
Quote from: viper37 on August 20, 2011, 01:17:18 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 19, 2011, 12:36:07 PM
They strike me as sort of people who are in a perpetual state of outrage.
You should read Canadian newspapers to get things into perspective.
:hmm: Well I might be projecting a bit there. We have many segments in the US that, politically anyway, are always outraged.
Quote from: Valmy on August 22, 2011, 07:53:42 AM
Quote from: viper37 on August 20, 2011, 01:17:18 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 19, 2011, 12:36:07 PM
They strike me as sort of people who are in a perpetual state of outrage.
You should read Canadian newspapers to get things into perspective.
:hmm: Well I might be projecting a bit there. We have many segments in the US that, politically anyway, are always outraged.
One recent example is the man who sued Air Canada for being, repeatdly, denied french service on board the aircrafts of the company (they have a monopoly on interior flight so long as they provide bilingual services). he won. But the amount of vitriol and call for deportation of the Québécois back to France was... Beyhond measure. Not only from comments allowed to be published on newspapers sites&blogs, but also from editorials.
http://www.torontosun.com/2011/07/15/a-12000-7up-mon-dieu
comment's section... (http://montreal.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110713/OTT_Air_Canada_110713/20110713/?hub=MontrealHome)
comment's again (http://digitaljournal.com/article/309124)
A blogger's view on this (http://bcblue.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/french-couples-phony-air-canada-language-lawsuit/)
They are the cry babies. They're all "multi-culti" when it suits them, but when it comes to respecting french-speaking citizens, there's just as much respect as there was in 1840 with the Act of Union.
Seems to me asking for 500,000 in punitives in this case deserves the same kind of treatment as any other excessive claim.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2011, 08:24:47 PM
Well I'm happy for you that you are no longer inferior. Still, these complaints about paintings being taken down are a bit tiresome. You guys kind of remind me of Southerners and their stupid confederate battle flag. "It's our culture and heritage!". That's not really fair. You guys aren't that bad, but it's a similar vibe.
Yes that isn't fair. After all, one is going to come across as somewhat vitriolic and extreme - if they are attempting to preserve their culture through the rule of law.
Do people have the right to be served in English in Quebec?
Quote from: viper37 on August 22, 2011, 10:31:55 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 22, 2011, 07:53:42 AM
Quote from: viper37 on August 20, 2011, 01:17:18 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 19, 2011, 12:36:07 PM
They strike me as sort of people who are in a perpetual state of outrage.
You should read Canadian newspapers to get things into perspective.
:hmm: Well I might be projecting a bit there. We have many segments in the US that, politically anyway, are always outraged.
One recent example is the man who sued Air Canada for being, repeatdly, denied french service on board the aircrafts of the company (they have a monopoly on interior flight so long as they provide bilingual services). he won. But the amount of vitriol and call for deportation of the Québécois back to France was... Beyhond measure. Not only from comments allowed to be published on newspapers sites&blogs, but also from editorials.
http://www.torontosun.com/2011/07/15/a-12000-7up-mon-dieu
comment's section... (http://montreal.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110713/OTT_Air_Canada_110713/20110713/?hub=MontrealHome)
comment's again (http://digitaljournal.com/article/309124)
A blogger's view on this (http://bcblue.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/french-couples-phony-air-canada-language-lawsuit/)
They are the cry babies. They're all "multi-culti" when it suits them, but when it comes to respecting french-speaking citizens, there's just as much respect as there was in 1840 with the Act of Union.
Fully bilingual dude asked for $525,000 for failure to obtain a 7-Up in French. On a flight, mark you, to that hotbed of the French Language - the US.
I would have thought that this would strike any reasonable person as an absurd working of the system.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2011, 11:04:01 AM
Do people have the right to be served in English in Quebec?
On an airplane, yes (federal sphere and all). In businesses under Quebec provincial jurisdiction, no.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2011, 11:04:01 AM
Do people have the right to be served in English in Quebec?
Probably... but they have to respond 50% quiter in english then in french :P
Quote from: Malthus on August 22, 2011, 11:07:35 AM
Fully bilingual dude asked for $525,000 for failure to obtain a 7-Up in French.
I would have thought that this would strike any reasonable person as an absurd working of the system.
The point is this company advertises itself as providing services in both languages. If it cannot comply then it should either address the issue or stop pretending to be bilingual. But *that* would give the lie to all the myths you people believe about yourselves. In other words Canadians' hypocrisy would be exposed for all to see.
G.
http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/07/27/air-canadas-biggest-mistake/
QuoteMichel Thibodeau admits it: he is probably the loudest of the roughly one million French Canadians living outside Quebec. Over the last decade, the Ottawa resident and his wife have filed some 100 complaints over the dearth of French language services against the federal, provincial and Ottawa municipal governments—everyone, he says, except the police.
http://metromonctonnews.com/?p=5118
Quote"I'm not doing this for fun. It's a lot of time: weekends, evenings. I do this on my own. I have no lawyer, no money for a lawyer and nobody wants to go through this. But at some point you have to stand up for your rights or lose them."
:hmm:
Quote from: Grallon on August 22, 2011, 11:13:54 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 22, 2011, 11:07:35 AM
Fully bilingual dude asked for $525,000 for failure to obtain a 7-Up in French.
I would have thought that this would strike any reasonable person as an absurd working of the system.
The point is this company advertises itself as providing services in both languages. If it cannot comply then it should either address the issue or stop pretending to be bilingual. But *that* would give the lie to all the myths you people believe about yourselves. In other words Canadians' hypocrisy would be exposed for all to see.
G.
You can ignore the fact that someone tried to enrich themselves over this by taking about "myths" but in reality what happened is someone didnt get to order a 7up in the language of their choice. A violation of a statutory obligation yes. Worth punitive damages of 500,000 - laughable.
Quote from: Grallon on August 22, 2011, 11:13:54 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 22, 2011, 11:07:35 AM
Fully bilingual dude asked for $525,000 for failure to obtain a 7-Up in French.
I would have thought that this would strike any reasonable person as an absurd working of the system.
The point is this company advertises itself as providing services in both languages. If it cannot comply then it should either address the issue or stop pretending to be bilingual. But *that* would give the lie to all the myths you people believe about yourselves. In other words Canadians' hypocrisy would be exposed for all to see.
G.
Normally, a violation of regulatory requirements would be treated as a matter of regulatory law. Damages in a civil lawsuit are usually awarded as
compensation for
injury or as
punitive sanctions for contemptuous behaviour (though the latter less so in Canada than the US).
What possible justification is there for giving this guy over a half-million dollars because he couldn't get a 7-Up in French?
By all accounts, he wasn't treated "contemptuously" and he suffered no damages whatsoever.
In any case, this fellow is a very odd choice to bring up as an example of "Quebec people are not whiny complainers". :lol:
CC, you are probably right. But Air Canada is singled out in every report of the Commissioner of Official Languages for not complying with their statutory obligation. At some point, either we change the statutes of Air Canada (which many are loathe to do, hence Grallon's accusation of hypocrisy) or we make such behaviour costly. As it stands, nothing happens.
(And quite frankly, I doubt Thibodeau is in for the money. He might be an opinionated bastard, but he is a politically motivated one, not a gold-digger)
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 22, 2011, 11:22:02 AM
CC, you are probably right. But Air Canada is singled out in every report of the Commissioner of Official Languages for not complying with their statutory obligation. At some point, either we change the statutes of Air Canada (which many are loathe to do, hence Grallon's accusation of hypocrisy) or we make such behaviour costly. As it stands, nothing happens.
(And quite frankly, I doubt Thibodeau is in for the money. He might be an opinionated bastard, but he is a politically motivated one, not a gold-digger)
I think you are ignoring that no airline could expend the kind of resources Grallon would require in order to give full voice to the "myth". Some degree of reasonableness is required which is the polar opposite of what happened in this case.
Air Canada is a good whipping boy because it has the most routes in Canada. What would Grallon want instead - no airline flying Quebec routes? That would be the alternative.
Quote(And quite frankly, I doubt Thibodeau is in for the money. He might be an opinionated bastard, but he is a politically motivated one, not a gold-digger)
It is always good to claim its not about the money - the best evidence is did he keep that money or donate it to charity. My guess is he kept it but I stand to be corrected.
Did he ever get his 7-up?
Yes but it still didn't speak french.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 22, 2011, 11:27:56 AM
I think you are ignoring that no airline could expend the kind of resources Grallon would require in order to give full voice to the "myth". Some degree of reasonableness is required which is the polar opposite of what happened in this case.
Again, if it was an isolated incident, I would understand, but again, this is Air Canada. It's been years that they have been targeted by the Commissioner: "Institutions such as Air Canada and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have shown little or no resolve to address language-of-work issues that have persisted for years". I have had the same experience much more than once. So, quite frankly, I will not shed tears over Air Canada.
And, again, you must understand that for one Michel Thibodeau, there are thousands of Quebeckers who say nothing, because they know it will take time and effort. I know the ROC media delights in stories such as these - precisely because they fit the "Quebecois are whiny bitches" trope - but the dynamics of language use in Canada are resignation. No one wants to wait 1 hour more for the Border agent who speaks French to show up.
QuoteAir Canada is a good whipping boy because it has the most routes in Canada. What would Grallon want instead - no airline flying Quebec routes? That would be the alternative.
My guess is Grallon wants exactly what he wrote: the end of the pretenses of bilingualism.
QuoteIt is always good to claim its not about the money - the best evidence is did he keep that money or donate it to charity. My guess is he kept it but I stand to be corrected.
I think this is a fallacy. One might be both politically motivated and tempted to keep the money. Just like Warren Buffet equivalents might wish for political measures to raise taxes without volunteering to pay more to the government.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2011, 11:28:14 AM
Did he ever get his 7-up?
That's what the court should have awarded him--a 7-UP. At most.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 22, 2011, 11:42:22 AM
I know the ROC media delights in stories such as these - precisely because they fit the "Quebecois are whiny bitches" trope
Which may be exactly why this guy claimed 500,000. He knew it would be greeted with outrage - richly deserved I might add.
QuoteMy guess is Grallon wants exactly what he wrote: the end of the pretenses of bilingualism.
I know that Grallon believes that he can achieve a poltical objective by doing away with a policy which amounts a kind of reasonable accomodation. My point is the reasonable accomodation itself has value which is probably why Grallon wants to do away with it.
QuoteI think this is a fallacy. One might be both politically motivated and tempted to keep the money. Just like Warren Buffet equivalents might wish for political measures to raise taxes without volunteering to pay more to the government
At least in Buffets case he is honest enough to admit it is about the money. I have never met a person who claimed a case wasnt about the money who didnt keep the money for themselves.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 22, 2011, 11:27:56 AM
I think you are ignoring that no airline could expend the kind of resources Grallon would require in order to give full voice to the "myth". Some degree of reasonableness is required which is the polar opposite of what happened in this case.
Air Canada is a good whipping boy because it has the most routes in Canada. What would Grallon want instead - no airline flying Quebec routes? That would be the alternative.
The most obvious solution is precisely to stop pretending to be a bilingual country - which we all know Canada isn't - and drop it altogether. But as I said, the emperor would suddenly be naked, and many of you still aren't willing to admit to these realities.
G.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 22, 2011, 11:48:08 AM
At least in Buffets case he is honest enough to admit it is about the money. I have never met a person who claimed a case wasnt about the money who didnt keep the money for themselves.
And so, when people are awarded money as compensation for all sorts of injustice, you would contend their primary motivation is always money?
Quote from: dps on August 22, 2011, 11:43:17 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2011, 11:28:14 AM
Did he ever get his 7-up?
That's what the court should have awarded him--a 7-UP. At most.
Oh Hell, I'm feeling generous. Give him a whole six pack.
Quote from: Grallon on August 22, 2011, 11:50:21 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 22, 2011, 11:27:56 AM
I think you are ignoring that no airline could expend the kind of resources Grallon would require in order to give full voice to the "myth". Some degree of reasonableness is required which is the polar opposite of what happened in this case.
Air Canada is a good whipping boy because it has the most routes in Canada. What would Grallon want instead - no airline flying Quebec routes? That would be the alternative.
The most obvious solution is precisely to stop pretending to be a bilingual country - which we all know Canada isn't - and drop it altogether. But as I said, the emperor would suddenly be naked, and many of you still aren't willing to admit to these realities.
G.
Presumably this would pave the way for Quebec becoming an independent country? Or do you have some other idea in mind?
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 22, 2011, 11:52:48 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 22, 2011, 11:48:08 AM
At least in Buffets case he is honest enough to admit it is about the money. I have never met a person who claimed a case wasnt about the money who didnt keep the money for themselves.
And so, when people are awarded money as compensation for all sorts of injustice, you would contend their primary motivation is always money?
Yes. When you speak of compensation you speak of making someone whole because of actual damage done to them. So, yes, of course it is about the money.
Quote from: Grallon on August 22, 2011, 11:50:21 AM
The most obvious solution is precisely to stop pretending to be a bilingual country - which we all know Canada isn't - and drop it altogether. But as I said, the emperor would suddenly be naked, and many of you still aren't willing to admit to these realities.
I am quite certain nobody pretends this is a bilingual country except for people who wish to create a strawman to further their own political objectives...
I am quite certain that if you walk into a Post Office in Quesnel BC you will most likely not be able to be served in French except in the most rudimentary way. I am also certain that if I walked into a Post Office in small town Quebec where 0% English was spoken I would be hard pressed to recieve service in English except in the most rudimentary manner.
Reasonable people accept that fact. Resources should be spent ensuring language appropriate service in circumstances where it matters most. Again I understand that this kind of reasonable approach does not fit well with your political ambititions. But I say that says more about your poltical ambitions then anything else.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 22, 2011, 12:20:46 PMI am quite certain that if you walk into a Post Office in Quesnel BC you will most likely not be able to be served in French except in the most rudimentary way.
You do know that Thibodeau's flight was between Montreal and Ottawa?
Quote from: Malthus on August 22, 2011, 11:07:35 AM
Quote from: viper37 on August 22, 2011, 10:31:55 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 22, 2011, 07:53:42 AM
Quote from: viper37 on August 20, 2011, 01:17:18 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 19, 2011, 12:36:07 PM
They strike me as sort of people who are in a perpetual state of outrage.
You should read Canadian newspapers to get things into perspective.
:hmm: Well I might be projecting a bit there. We have many segments in the US that, politically anyway, are always outraged.
One recent example is the man who sued Air Canada for being, repeatdly, denied french service on board the aircrafts of the company (they have a monopoly on interior flight so long as they provide bilingual services). he won. But the amount of vitriol and call for deportation of the Québécois back to France was... Beyhond measure. Not only from comments allowed to be published on newspapers sites&blogs, but also from editorials.
http://www.torontosun.com/2011/07/15/a-12000-7up-mon-dieu
comment's section... (http://montreal.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110713/OTT_Air_Canada_110713/20110713/?hub=MontrealHome)
comment's again (http://digitaljournal.com/article/309124)
A blogger's view on this (http://bcblue.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/french-couples-phony-air-canada-language-lawsuit/)
They are the cry babies. They're all "multi-culti" when it suits them, but when it comes to respecting french-speaking citizens, there's just as much respect as there was in 1840 with the Act of Union.
Fully bilingual dude asked for $525,000 for failure to obtain a 7-Up in French. On a flight, mark you, to that hotbed of the French Language - the US.
I would have thought that this would strike any reasonable person as an absurd working of the system.
What you're saying is that Canadian corporations should not respect the laws of the country.
Mind you, he wasn't asking 525 000$ for one 7-up, but for multiple infractions over multiple flights. Air Canada always promised to correct the situation, they never did. Wich is why he asked for 525 000$.
I'm inclined to let Air Canada forget about compliance to the Official languages act. But I want the end of their monopoly over interior flights. I don't expect bilingual flight attendants with US Airways, so if I can't have it on Air Canada, then by all means, invite the Americans, the Quatari and the Russians to compete with them. Strangely, it's not something that Canadians want.
A French spealing citizen has the right to be served in French all accross the country. Not be expelled from a flight for asking for it.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 22, 2011, 12:14:36 PMYes. When you speak of compensation you speak of making someone whole because of actual damage done to them. So, yes, of course it is about the money.
Ok. You are stretching it quite a lot farther than I. In our societies, where the principle of monetary compensation has been applied to a whole range of behaviours, I do not necessarily see every desire for justice to be "about the money".
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 22, 2011, 12:20:46 PM
I am quite certain that if you walk into a Post Office in Quesnel BC you will most likely not be able to be served in French except in the most rudimentary way. I am also certain that if I walked into a Post Office in small town Quebec where 0% English was spoken I would be hard pressed to recieve service in English except in the most rudimentary manner.
Wrong. The staff has to be bilingual, those who serve the clients I mean. They do speak english here, in a 4500 inhabitants city.
Subway and McDonald's staff are also fully bilingual. The accent may be thick, but the customer is able to understand perfectly.
Small, privately owned restaurants (the kind where the owner of the restaurant is the one serving you) may not always have bilingual staff though, but we're not asking that much ourself...
You should travel more often through the small towns of Quebec. ;)
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 22, 2011, 11:42:22 AM
Again, if it was an isolated incident, I would understand, but again, this is Air Canada. It's been years that they have been targeted by the Commissioner: "Institutions such as Air Canada and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have shown little or no resolve to address language-of-work issues that have persisted for years". I have had the same experience much more than once. So, quite frankly, I will not shed tears over Air Canada.
And, again, you must understand that for one Michel Thibodeau, there are thousands of Quebeckers who say nothing, because they know it will take time and effort. I know the ROC media delights in stories such as these - precisely because they fit the "Quebecois are whiny bitches" trope - but the dynamics of language use in Canada are resignation. No one wants to wait 1 hour more for the Border agent who speaks French to show up.
Please note that it wasn't us English Canadians who brought up this story - it was Viper, who brought up the blogsphere reaction to this story as an example of Anglo Canadians acting like "crybabies".
The point here is that a hostile reaction to people who sue for big bucks over trifles isn't exactly unknown to the world's media.
QuoteMy guess is Grallon wants exactly what he wrote: the end of the pretenses of bilingualism.
So having nobody accomodated in French is better somehow than having people accomodated, albeit imperfectly? :wacko:
QuoteIt is always good to claim its not about the money - the best evidence is did he keep that money or donate it to charity. My guess is he kept it but I stand to be corrected.
I think this is a fallacy. One might be both politically motivated and tempted to keep the money. Just like Warren Buffet equivalents might wish for political measures to raise taxes without volunteering to pay more to the government.
[/quote]
One can sue for declaratory relief, or injunctive relief. There is nothing requiring one to ask for a half million in damages for a trifling violation.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 22, 2011, 12:26:51 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 22, 2011, 12:20:46 PMI am quite certain that if you walk into a Post Office in Quesnel BC you will most likely not be able to be served in French except in the most rudimentary way.
You do know that Thibodeau's flight was between Montreal and Ottawa?
What is the significance of that. Both are multilingual cities. The passenger was multilingual. Putting the statutory obligation aside for the moment why isnt it reasonable to assume passengers could speak either official language? my bet is he waited for the one stewardess who didnt speak French and pounced.
Quote from: viper37 on August 22, 2011, 12:32:32 PM
You should travel more often through the small towns of Quebec. ;)
I am sure I have heard on more than one occasion of communities that speak only French. Perhaps this is changing and that may be the source of Grallon's particular anger.
Quote from: viper37 on August 22, 2011, 12:27:15 PM
What you're saying is that Canadian corporations should not respect the laws of the country.
Mind you, he wasn't asking 525 000$ for one 7-up, but for multiple infractions over multiple flights. Air Canada always promised to correct the situation, they never did. Wich is why he asked for 525 000$.
I'm inclined to let Air Canada forget about compliance to the Official languages act. But I want the end of their monopoly over interior flights. I don't expect bilingual flight attendants with US Airways, so if I can't have it on Air Canada, then by all means, invite the Americans, the Quatari and the Russians to compete with them. Strangely, it's not something that Canadians want.
A French spealing citizen has the right to be served in French all accross the country. Not be expelled from a flight for asking for it.
No, I'm saying that a trifling violation of regulations isn't worth a half-million in damages, because the guy is hardly injured to the extent of a half million dollars by failure to be served a 7 Up in French. There is a bit of a middle excluded here ... :hmm:
If he was expelled *mid-flight*, then I could see it. :D
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 22, 2011, 12:31:59 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 22, 2011, 12:14:36 PMYes. When you speak of compensation you speak of making someone whole because of actual damage done to them. So, yes, of course it is about the money.
Ok. You are stretching it quite a lot farther than I. In our societies, where the principle of monetary compensation has been applied to a whole range of behaviours, I do not necessarily see every desire for justice to be "about the money".
Please give specifics. The principle of monetary compensation for something other than actual damages suffered has a pretty limited scope and so it would be helpful to know what you have in mind. For example in this very case his damage award was minor (although some would still be surprised by the amount) because he suffered no damage to speak of.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 22, 2011, 12:37:53 PMWhat is the significance of that. Both are multilingual cities. The passenger was multilingual. Putting the statutory obligation aside for the moment why isnt it reasonable to assume passengers could speak either official language? my bet is he waited for the one stewardess who didnt speak French and pounced.
The significance is precisely that you claimed it was unreasonable to expect French services in the middle of nowhere BC. The converse seemed to be that it would be reasonable to expect French service between a city with a majority of French speakers and the National capital of a formally bilingual country.
Even if we allow for Thibodeau's malice, it seems still quite extraordinary to find a unilingual anglophone steward between Montreal and Ottawa. But I imagine this will not be termed "reasonable expectation" either.
You do realize that the moment we are speaking of French services outside of Quebec, you are, in 95% of cases, be confronted with "multilingual speakers", and thus, any demand for French service would be termed "unreasonable" following your argument?
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 22, 2011, 12:46:52 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 22, 2011, 12:37:53 PMWhat is the significance of that. Both are multilingual cities. The passenger was multilingual. Putting the statutory obligation aside for the moment why isnt it reasonable to assume passengers could speak either official language? my bet is he waited for the one stewardess who didnt speak French and pounced.
The significance is precisely that you claimed it was unreasonable to expect French services in the middle of nowhere BC. The converse seemed to be that it would be reasonable to expect French service between a city with a majority of French speakers and the National capital of a formally bilingual country.
Even if we allow for Thibodeau's malice, it seems still quite extraordinary to find a unilingual anglophone steward between Montreal and Ottawa. But I imagine this will not be termed "reasonable expectation" either.
You do realize that the moment we are speaking of French services outside of Quebec, you are, in 95% of cases, be confronted with "multilingual speakers", and thus, any demand for French service would be termed "unreasonable" following your argument?
The reason why airlines are within federal jurisdiction (and thus subject to federal regulation, and to bilingual language policies) is exactly because airplanes fly between places, such as various provinces; thus it is impossible, or at least very difficult, to subject them to the regime of any
one province, as an airplane flying between (say) Montreal and Ottawa one day, may be flying between Ottawa and Regina the next, and between Regina and Victoria the day after.
Thus it would make ne sense, or greatly complicate staffing, to make seperate crews for particular within-province flights; hence, the idea that they all be bilingual - at least, in theory.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 22, 2011, 12:40:07 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 22, 2011, 12:32:32 PM
You should travel more often through the small towns of Quebec. ;)
I am sure I have heard on more than one occasion of communities that speak only French. Perhaps this is changing and that may be the source of Grallon's particular anger.
Ah, there's two things.
The language people use in their daily lives: 99% French. Speak French at work, watch french tv, listen to french radio, listen english music.
But if necessary, in restaurants and other "tourists" places, there will be bilingual staff. I've never seen an english speaker having trouble ordering at a restaurant, and they even have bilingual or english menus on demand at most restaurants of decent size around here. Yet, it's very french. People don't read english newspapers, don't watch american or canadian tv shows unless they're dubbed, they don't read english books, etc, etc.
But they can still use english to give appropriate service to english speakers travelling through the town.
Montreal is a different matter. In Montreal, you have to fight to get a French menu or have the waitress speak French to you. In many stores, the staff will not speak french, only english to the clients.
I was remarquably surprised at Ottawa on my last trip. Once I explained to the waitress I would need a few minutes to translate for my friends, she sent someone else with french menu to take our orders. Didn't have to ask.
The Keg may not be the finest of what Ottawa has to offer in terms of restaurants, but I'll sure eat there again the next time I got.
Cathering to your customer's needs is a way to survive as a business. Having a government regulated monopoly is another.
Being a monopoly doesn't exclude rude behavior. It's not like it's the first time Air Canada is in trouble.
And as can be seen by the various comments here & on the blogs, English Canadians totally ignore that and judge this immediatly as a frivolous lawsuit. Yet, some Quebec anglophone suing the government because he doesn't have english only signs on his street is not. Weird country.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 22, 2011, 12:46:52 PM
You do realize that the moment we are speaking of French services outside of Quebec, you are, in 95% of cases, be confronted with "multilingual speakers", and thus, any demand for French service would be termed "unreasonable" following your argument?
No, go back and read my post where I said resources should be spent where language of choice services is more critical. Ordering a 7up in the language of your choice does not seem that critical. You realize I assume that having a french speaker available for each of those 95% of cases would be unreasonable and I used extreme examples to make the point clearly.
Or do you really require someone fluent in French be in a post office in Quesnel BC in case one day someone might enter that buiding asking for service in French?
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 22, 2011, 12:55:09 PM
Or do you really require someone fluent in French be in a post office in Quesnel BC in case one day someone might enter that buiding asking for service in French?
Yes. Just as there's always someone bilingual in my post office.
God, I'm glad we haven't adopted a "National Language".
Are there really that many people who ONLY speak French in Canada?
Quote from: Malthus on August 22, 2011, 12:33:51 PM
Please note that it wasn't us English Canadians who brought up this story - it was Viper, who brought up the blogsphere reaction to this story as an example of Anglo Canadians acting like "crybabies".
The point here is that a hostile reaction to people who sue for big bucks over trifles isn't exactly unknown to the world's media.
Your second point would be valid, if the commentary over the media had been focused over this guy's charming personality. Rather, it became yet another spin over "whiny Quebecois".
As for your first point, I try to differenciate between Languish posters, media reception, and my political generalizations (which I do think are unavoidable, to a large extent). Comments over how things are portrayed in the media need not to implicate you, CC, Buddha or any other "you English Canadians".
Quote from: viper37 on August 22, 2011, 12:54:58 PM
Being a monopoly doesn't exclude rude behavior. It's not like it's the first time Air Canada is in trouble.
And as can be seen by the various comments here & on the blogs, English Canadians totally ignore that and judge this immediatly as a frivolous lawsuit. Yet, some Quebec anglophone suing the government because he doesn't have english only signs on his street is not. Weird country.
Two points here. First, what about this behavior was rude? Is not understanding a Language now rude? Is not employing perfectly bilingual staff on all flights now rude?
What you are totally ignoring is that the claim for 500,000 is what makes this claim frivolous not that fact that someone was claiming he was not served in French.
Quote from: viper37 on August 22, 2011, 12:54:58 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 22, 2011, 12:40:07 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 22, 2011, 12:32:32 PM
You should travel more often through the small towns of Quebec. ;)
I am sure I have heard on more than one occasion of communities that speak only French. Perhaps this is changing and that may be the source of Grallon's particular anger.
Ah, there's two things.
The language people use in their daily lives: 99% French. Speak French at work, watch french tv, listen to french radio, listen english music.
But if necessary, in restaurants and other "tourists" places, there will be bilingual staff. I've never seen an english speaker having trouble ordering at a restaurant, and they even have bilingual or english menus on demand at most restaurants of decent size around here. Yet, it's very french. People don't read english newspapers, don't watch american or canadian tv shows unless they're dubbed, they don't read english books, etc, etc.
But they can still use english to give appropriate service to english speakers travelling through the town.
Montreal is a different matter. In Montreal, you have to fight to get a French menu or have the waitress speak French to you. In many stores, the staff will not speak french, only english to the clients.
I was remarquably surprised at Ottawa on my last trip. Once I explained to the waitress I would need a few minutes to translate for my friends, she sent someone else with french menu to take our orders. Didn't have to ask.
The Keg may not be the finest of what Ottawa has to offer in terms of restaurants, but I'll sure eat there again the next time I got.
Cathering to your customer's needs is a way to survive as a business. Having a government regulated monopoly is another.
Being a monopoly doesn't exclude rude behavior. It's not like it's the first time Air Canada is in trouble.
And as can be seen by the various comments here & on the blogs, English Canadians totally ignore that and judge this immediatly as a frivolous lawsuit. Yet, some Quebec anglophone suing the government because he doesn't have english only signs on his street is not. Weird country.
The point about the Quebec language laws is that it is usually the government prosecuting the individual for violating them - not the other way around.
The problem people have with this guy's lawsuit is that he hasn't suffered any damages, yet he's asking for a cool half-mil.
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2011, 12:58:22 PM
Are there really that many people who ONLY speak French in Canada?
that's beside the point.
If I were to be judged for a crime I supposedly commited in Alberta, I would very much like a trial in French, and have a bilingual judge, just to make sure nothing is lost in translation. Alas, it is not considered important for my English Canadian friends. But they have the right to an english trial anywhere in the country, though.
Quote from: viper37 on August 22, 2011, 01:04:55 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2011, 12:58:22 PM
Are there really that many people who ONLY speak French in Canada?
that's beside the point.
If I were to be judged for a crime I supposedly commited in Alberta, I would very much like a trial in French, and have a bilingual judge, just to make sure nothing is lost in translation. Alas, it is not considered important for my English Canadian friends. But they have the right to an english trial anywhere in the country, though.
I is almost certainly beside SOME point, but it is not at all beside MY point, which is really just a question.
Are there a lot of French speaking Candians who do not speak English?
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 22, 2011, 01:01:26 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 22, 2011, 12:54:58 PM
Being a monopoly doesn't exclude rude behavior. It's not like it's the first time Air Canada is in trouble.
And as can be seen by the various comments here & on the blogs, English Canadians totally ignore that and judge this immediatly as a frivolous lawsuit. Yet, some Quebec anglophone suing the government because he doesn't have english only signs on his street is not. Weird country.
Two points here. First, what about this behavior was rude? Is not understanding a Language now rude? Is not employing perfectly bilingual staff on all flights now rude?
This one was probably not rude. Other customers have been expelled from Air Canada's flight just for asking someone who speaks French.
As I said, for Thibodeau, it wasn't the first time he was denied his right.
Quote
What you are totally ignoring is that the claim for 500,000 is what makes this claim frivolous not that fact that someone was claiming he was not served in French.
So, let's claim 500$ instead. Or the price of a ticket. Or just nothing, just write a complaint. And once more. Once again. And at some point, you get angry, because things don't change. And then you realize: what's the best way to make a company actually comply with its policies and the law? Sue them for an enormous amount of money.
500 000$ may not be that big for Air Canada, but it's not pocket change either.
So they think. "Do we get sued for 500 000$ by each of our clients or do we do things rights once and for all?".
Even Albertans will understand this ;)
Quote from: viper37 on August 22, 2011, 12:56:30 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 22, 2011, 12:55:09 PM
Or do you really require someone fluent in French be in a post office in Quesnel BC in case one day someone might enter that buiding asking for service in French?
Yes. Just as there's always someone bilingual in my post office.
Then I agree, lets scrap the whole idea. If people are not prepared to be reasonable what is the point.
I wonder if I have a right to an English trial in Puerto Rico.
Quote from: viper37 on August 22, 2011, 01:09:07 PM
And then you realize: what's the best way to make a company actually comply with its policies and the law? Sue them for an enormous amount of money.
500 000$ may not be that big for Air Canada, but it's not pocket change either.
So they think. "Do we get sued for 500 000$ by each of our clients or do we do things rights once and for all?".
Even Albertans will understand this ;)
If that is the thought process he went through then he really was in this for the media exposure since there was never any chance he was getting 500,000 - that is the very definition of a frivilous law suit - and why English Canada is treating it as such.
Quote from: viper37 on August 22, 2011, 01:09:07 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 22, 2011, 01:01:26 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 22, 2011, 12:54:58 PM
Being a monopoly doesn't exclude rude behavior. It's not like it's the first time Air Canada is in trouble.
And as can be seen by the various comments here & on the blogs, English Canadians totally ignore that and judge this immediatly as a frivolous lawsuit. Yet, some Quebec anglophone suing the government because he doesn't have english only signs on his street is not. Weird country.
Two points here. First, what about this behavior was rude? Is not understanding a Language now rude? Is not employing perfectly bilingual staff on all flights now rude?
This one was probably not rude. Other customers have been expelled from Air Canada's flight just for asking someone who speaks French.
Wow, if you can get half a million for not getting French 7-Up, how much do you get for being kicked off of a flight for speaking French!
Quebecers should just stop speaking French and speak English instead. Problem solved.
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2011, 01:08:57 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 22, 2011, 01:04:55 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2011, 12:58:22 PM
Are there really that many people who ONLY speak French in Canada?
that's beside the point.
If I were to be judged for a crime I supposedly commited in Alberta, I would very much like a trial in French, and have a bilingual judge, just to make sure nothing is lost in translation. Alas, it is not considered important for my English Canadian friends. But they have the right to an english trial anywhere in the country, though.
I is almost certainly beside SOME point, but it is not at all beside MY point, which is really just a question.
Are there a lot of French speaking Candians who do not speak English?
35% of Québécois are bilingual. That means 65% don't understand english.
About 95% of French Canadians outside of Quebec understand english.
I sure wish it would change, I sure wish we would be as bilingual or trilingual as many europeans, but that's a difficult point to press home. Lots of resistance against the anglo-saxon invaders. And the fact that not everyone is able to learn a second language or simply does not want to, and other problems related with education.
If we were to achieve 70-75% bilinguism (english-french), I'd be happy. Still wouldn't want of an unilingual Canada though.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 22, 2011, 12:59:49 PM
Your second point would be valid, if the commentary over the media had been focused over this guy's charming personality. Rather, it became yet another spin over "whiny Quebecois".
What does his personality have to do with anything? He's suing for big bucks over a trifle. Of course commentary is going to be negative! To the extent he politicises the matter, and his cause is taken up by others in Quebec as symbolic of language rights (and it was), some of that very natural and predictable opprobrium is going to smear them, too.
QuoteThe francophone advocacy group Imperatif francais welcomed the ruling.
"We hope that Air Canada will get the message and stop insulting francophones and the French fact in Canada," said president Jean-Paul Perrault.
QuoteAs for your first point, I try to differenciate between Languish posters, media reception, and my political generalizations (which I do think are unavoidable, to a large extent). Comments over how things are portrayed in the media need not to implicate you, CC, Buddha or any other "you English Canadians".
And I'm making a different point. That in this very thread, this story is ironically enough being provided as an example of unreasonable Anglo Canadian behaviour.
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2011, 01:12:33 PM
if you can get half a million for not getting French 7-Up, how much do you get for being kicked off of a flight for speaking French!
Can't say, that one was solved out of court, without divulgation of the amount.
Quote from: Palisadoes on August 22, 2011, 01:13:04 PM
Quebecers should just stop speaking French and speak English instead. Problem solved.
Canada should merge with the United States. Same culture, same language, same origins. It's silly to have to seperate english countries in North-America.
They'd have to abandon monarchy though... that might not go well.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 22, 2011, 12:55:09 PMNo, go back and read my post where I said resources should be spent where language of choice services is more critical. Ordering a 7up in the language of your choice does not seem that critical.
And thus, what constitutes "critical service", in your opinion? And why is it unreasonable to expect French service on a plane connecting Montreal and Ottawa? Would it be unreasonable to expect English service between Vancouver and Calgary?
The language laws were not introduced for matters of life and death - there were introduced in order to provide the possibility for a Francophone in Canada could live his or her daily life in French. And, that being said, even in matters of considerable more importance (consular services, health issues, immigration) it is incredibly difficult to get such services outside of Quebec.
Quote from: viper37 on August 22, 2011, 01:14:18 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2011, 01:08:57 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 22, 2011, 01:04:55 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2011, 12:58:22 PM
Are there really that many people who ONLY speak French in Canada?
that's beside the point.
If I were to be judged for a crime I supposedly commited in Alberta, I would very much like a trial in French, and have a bilingual judge, just to make sure nothing is lost in translation. Alas, it is not considered important for my English Canadian friends. But they have the right to an english trial anywhere in the country, though.
I is almost certainly beside SOME point, but it is not at all beside MY point, which is really just a question.
Are there a lot of French speaking Candians who do not speak English?
35% of Québécois are bilingual. That means 65% don't understand english.
About 95% of French Canadians outside of Quebec understand english.
I sure wish it would change, I sure wish we would be as bilingual or trilingual as many europeans, but that's a difficult point to press home. Lots of resistance against the anglo-saxon invaders. And the fact that not everyone is able to learn a second language or simply does not want to, and other problems related with education.
If we were to achieve 70-75% bilinguism (english-french), I'd be happy. Still wouldn't want of an unilingual Canada though.
See, that wasn't so hard was it?
If there are that many who do not speak English, than clearly they should be accommodated in some fashion. Just like Spanish speakers in the US in many places should be accommodated where the impact of the language barrier is significant.
On the other hand, I don't know that said accommodation needs to extend to a guarantee of getting any particular service in your chosen language, much less a soft drink on an airline flight.
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2011, 01:12:33 PM
Wow, if you can get half a million for not getting French 7-Up, how much do you get for being kicked off of a flight for speaking French!
Depends if it's already in the air or not.
Question: Does the 7-Up need to be labeled in French as well?
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 22, 2011, 01:17:15 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 22, 2011, 12:55:09 PMNo, go back and read my post where I said resources should be spent where language of choice services is more critical. Ordering a 7up in the language of your choice does not seem that critical.
And thus, what constitutes "critical service", in your opinion? And why is it unreasonable to expect French service on a plane connecting Montreal and Ottawa? Would it be unreasonable to expect English service between Vancouver and Calgary.
I think it would be unreasonable for the state to legislate what languages people in industries speak when there is clearly no critical function that will impact on peple in a significant manner. I could maybe see the demand that an airline be able to communicate with customers well enough to allow them to make a reservation and take a fight. I guess. But the ability to order a soft drink?
Did the guy in question not speak English at all, so he just had to be thirsty?
It would be a foolish business choice to not have English speaking people on a flight between Vancouver and Calgary. Whether or not it is "reasonable" isn't really relevant, is it?
What is the French word for 7-up anyway? I've been able to order things at a store where I didn't speak the language by just pointing and saying the English word.
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2011, 01:17:19 PM
On the other hand, I don't know that said accommodation needs to extend to a guarantee of getting any particular service in your chosen language, much less a soft drink on an airline flight.
The difference here lies in the difference in Canadian and American histories, where guarantees over various matters (first religion, then laws, then language) became hot topics as soon as a sizeable "different" population needed to be governed within the British empire as early as 1760, and because the subsequent national narrative could not do away with the French - the way, for instance, early American narratives could not care less about the Spanish people on the borderlands, and did not need to secure the loyalty of the few Spanish-speakers inhabitants of California, New Mexico, Texas, etc.
Still, Raz's question is an interesting one: would you have the right to an English trial in Puerto Rico?
Quote from: viper37 on August 22, 2011, 01:04:55 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2011, 12:58:22 PM
Are there really that many people who ONLY speak French in Canada?
that's beside the point.
If I were to be judged for a crime I supposedly commited in Alberta, I would very much like a trial in French, and have a bilingual judge, just to make sure nothing is lost in translation. Alas, it is not considered important for my English Canadian friends. But they have the right to an english trial anywhere in the country, though.
Hey Viper - Fuck You. :)
We spend a great deal of time and effort to ensure that everyone is entitled to a trial in either offcial language, anywhere in the country. I have spent a great deal of time even recently researching and discussing this topic with colleagues.
And yes - I happen to know for a fact that we've run French language trials in Dawson City, Yukon.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 22, 2011, 01:17:15 PM
And why is it unreasonable to expect French service on a plane connecting Montreal and Ottawa? Would it be unreasonable to expect English service between Vancouver and Calgary?
It would not be unreasonable, since there is at least some chance someone on that flight might be a unilingual French speaker. The chances are small but I grant you that there might be someone that goes without their 7up because they simply cannot communicate the fact they want one to the crew.
The chances of the occuring between Vancouver to Calgary is zero.
So I ask you again. Do you really think it is reasonable to have someone employed in the Quesnel Post Office in the off chance one year someone might come in requesting services in French?
Where I think this policy has gone wrong is it is being misused by people for political purposes. Show me a case where someone could not recieve a service from a a Federal service provider because they were unable to commicate and you will get much more of a sympathetic ear from me.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2011, 01:19:31 PM
Question: Does the 7-Up need to be labeled in French as well?
If it is sold in Quebec, yes.
Most American companies have complied without much fuss at all.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 22, 2011, 01:28:48 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2011, 01:19:31 PM
Question: Does the 7-Up need to be labeled in French as well?
If it is sold in Quebec, yes.
Most American companies have complied without much fuss at all.
I know a lot of American companies don't do business in Quebec for that very reason. To much of a hassle. But, I meant on the airplane.
The problem I see with the Air Canada example is that the requirement to offer bilingual services exists only on Air Canada. Because Air Canada was a Crown Corporation, when it was privatized special conditions were enshrined in the Air Canada Public Participation Act that require it to follow the Official Languages Act. No other airline has those requirements put on it.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 22, 2011, 01:28:48 PM
Most American companies have complied without much fuss at all.
Because Canadian Border services requires such labelling before the product is allowed in the Country ;)
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2011, 01:21:50 PM
Did the guy in question not speak English at all, so he just had to be thirsty?
The guy in question speaks English and was not at all prevented from having a 7-up by language issues. His hobby, apparently, is making complaints of this sort, as a sort of self-chosen language inspector.
Quote from: Malthus on August 22, 2011, 01:31:19 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2011, 01:21:50 PM
Did the guy in question not speak English at all, so he just had to be thirsty?
The guy in question speaks English and was not at all prevented from having a 7-up by language issues. His hobby, apparently, is making complaints of this sort, as a sort of self-chosen language inspector.
I am having a lot of trouble resisting the "Damn, what a whiny bitch" response.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2011, 01:30:10 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 22, 2011, 01:28:48 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2011, 01:19:31 PM
Question: Does the 7-Up need to be labeled in French as well?
If it is sold in Quebec, yes.
Most American companies have complied without much fuss at all.
I know a lot of American companies don't do business in Quebec for that very reason. To much of a hassle. But, I meant on the airplane.
Yeah? Their solution seems to be to simply have everything they sell anywhere in North America be in French, English, and Spanish...or at least the packaging. Any specific corps you were thinking of because it seems like they have no problem with it, if the office supply boxes and manuals we get at the office all being trilingual are any indication.
Quote from: viper37 on August 22, 2011, 01:16:41 PM
Quote from: Palisadoes on August 22, 2011, 01:13:04 PM
Quebecers should just stop speaking French and speak English instead. Problem solved.
Canada should merge with the United States. Same culture, same language, same origins. It's silly to have to seperate english countries in North-America.
They'd have to abandon monarchy though... that might not go well.
I'm unsure. The Yanks seemed to love the Royal Wedding.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2011, 01:30:10 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 22, 2011, 01:28:48 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2011, 01:19:31 PM
Question: Does the 7-Up need to be labeled in French as well?
If it is sold in Quebec, yes.
Most American companies have complied without much fuss at all.
I know a lot of American companies don't do business in Quebec for that very reason. To much of a hassle. But, I meant on the airplane.
Virtually all consumer goods in this country are merely labelled in both official languages (or even in English, French and Spanish, so they can be sold even more widely). I don't think you can characterize it that "a lot" of companies don't do business in Canada because of language issues.
My pool had french language manuals, and all the warning stickers were in French, Spanish, and English. We put up some of the French ones because the kids thought it was funny. I don't know why.
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2011, 01:32:28 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 22, 2011, 01:31:19 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2011, 01:21:50 PM
Did the guy in question not speak English at all, so he just had to be thirsty?
The guy in question speaks English and was not at all prevented from having a 7-up by language issues. His hobby, apparently, is making complaints of this sort, as a sort of self-chosen language inspector.
I am having a lot of trouble resisting the "Damn, what a whiny bitch" response.
Not really. If you believe in the Trudeau message that Canada is a bilingual country than using the courts to make sure people, you know, comply with the laws seems to be perfectly reasonable.
People in the US do that all the time about whatever their particular agenda is.
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2011, 01:32:28 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 22, 2011, 01:31:19 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2011, 01:21:50 PM
Did the guy in question not speak English at all, so he just had to be thirsty?
The guy in question speaks English and was not at all prevented from having a 7-up by language issues. His hobby, apparently, is making complaints of this sort, as a sort of self-chosen language inspector.
I am having a lot of trouble resisting the "Damn, what a whiny bitch" response.
True, but if you're going to enshrine something as a
right, you can't make it only a right when it's for a noble purpose.
A lot of the French trials we've run otu West have been for perfectly bilingual individuals (or at least they seem perfectly bilingual to us), but we still give them their French trial because it is their right.
Quote from: Valmy on August 22, 2011, 01:34:20 PM
Not really. If you believe in the Trudeau message that Canada is a bilingual country than using the courts to make sure people, you know, comply with the laws seems to be perfectly reasonable.
People in the US do that all the time about whatever their particular agenda is.
If the guy was suing for a mandatory order or a declaration, I'd agree with you.
Suing for a half-million dollars because you weren't served a 7-Up in the language of your choice is obnoxious, any way you slice it.
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2011, 01:33:40 PM
My pool had french language manuals, and all the warning stickers were in French, Spanish, and English. We put up some of the French ones because the kids thought it was funny. I don't know why.
French is awesome and appealing to children :frog:
But seriously almost everything I buy in Texas is in three languages. But maybe we are classified as some sort of multi-language zone with so many Spanish speakers.
Quote from: Valmy on August 22, 2011, 01:34:20 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2011, 01:32:28 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 22, 2011, 01:31:19 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2011, 01:21:50 PM
Did the guy in question not speak English at all, so he just had to be thirsty?
The guy in question speaks English and was not at all prevented from having a 7-up by language issues. His hobby, apparently, is making complaints of this sort, as a sort of self-chosen language inspector.
I am having a lot of trouble resisting the "Damn, what a whiny bitch" response.
Not really. If you believe in the Trudeau message that Canada is a bilingual country than using the courts to make sure people, you know, comply with the laws seems to be perfectly reasonable.
People in the US do that all the time about whatever their particular agenda is.
Yeah, and plenty of them are whiny bitches too.
But I take your point - I look at this much more as a practical issue, and taking it beyond that seems silly to me, and I admit that is almost certainly because I have no political or emotional investment in the issue.
The "right" to order 7-Up in French? Really?
You guys only get three languages. Pikers.
Quote from: Valmy on August 22, 2011, 01:34:20 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2011, 01:32:28 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 22, 2011, 01:31:19 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2011, 01:21:50 PM
Did the guy in question not speak English at all, so he just had to be thirsty?
The guy in question speaks English and was not at all prevented from having a 7-up by language issues. His hobby, apparently, is making complaints of this sort, as a sort of self-chosen language inspector.
I am having a lot of trouble resisting the "Damn, what a whiny bitch" response.
Not really. If you believe in the Trudeau message that Canada is a bilingual country than using the courts to make sure people, you know, comply with the laws seems to be perfectly reasonable.
People in the US do that all the time about whatever their particular agenda is.
Never was a Doonsbury fan. And yeah, people do this in the US all the time. People who are actively looking for things to insult them are annoying.
I do support the government making reasonable accommodations for other languages. For instance documents printed in Spanish or Navaho or whatever, or courts proceedings translated in to the defendants language. I don't care for making private businesses comply with this. I hold public and private entities to a different standard. I don't fully understand how the airline works, is it public or private or a combination of both? Anyway, demanding to be served in French even if you know English and then suing for half a million dollars strikes me as absurd.
Fuck all foreigners. Get the hell out.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2011, 01:46:36 PM
I don't fully understand how the airline works, is it public or private or a combination of both? Anyway, demanding to be served in French even if you know English and then suing for half a million dollars strikes me as absurd.
You are not the only one a bit confused by it all. It was a crown corporation - so basically a Public entity. Then it was privatized to a certain extent to allow for the possibility of more competition but being Canada it wasnt completely privatized and so you have these odd vestiges that require it to continue to act as a psuedo Crown Corporation.
Which, as I said much earlier in the thread, makes it a perfect whipping boy for people with a political axe to grind.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2011, 01:46:36 PM
People who are actively looking for things to insult them are annoying.
I do support the government making reasonable accommodations for other languages. For instance documents printed in Spanish or Navaho or whatever, or courts proceedings translated in to the defendants language. I don't care for making private businesses comply with this. I hold public and private entities to a different standard. I don't fully understand how the airline works, is it public or private or a combination of both? Anyway, demanding to be served in French even if you know English and then suing for half a million dollars strikes me as absurd.
So how else should one attempt to advance their political agenda? If there are laws that are not being followed doing a highly public lawsuit that gets a corportation's attention by attacking their bottom line is a good way to bring attention to that fact. I mean it is not like he can attack the problem at the voting booth, the laws already exist.
Quote from: Valmy on August 22, 2011, 01:59:07 PM
I mean it is not like he can attack the problem at the voting booth, the laws already exist.
You could easily advocate for legislated penalties that were more "meaningful".
Quote from: Valmy on August 22, 2011, 01:59:07 PM
So how else should one attempt to advance their political agenda? If there are laws that are not being followed doing a highly public lawsuit that gets a corportation's attention by attacking their bottom line is a good way to bring attention to that fact. I mean it is not like he can attack the problem at the voting booth, the laws already exist.
I am unclear what the agenda is exactly. But as CC pointed out, raising the fine for complaints would be a good place to start.
Well even if he did do that he would have to fight the battle to get 7-Up served in a bilingual way eventually.
If what you really wanted was to force Air Canada to carry out its statutory duties, you could seek an order for Mandamus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandamus
No need to ask for a half mil in punitives.
Quote from: Valmy on August 22, 2011, 01:38:48 PM
But seriously almost everything I buy in Texas is in three languages. But maybe we are classified as some sort of multi-language zone with so many Spanish speakers.
Most products you buy anywhere in the US are going to have at least English and Spanish labelling, and usually French as well--if you are buying products made by a major corporation. Major corporations (almost by definition) do business everywhere in North America, more-or-less, so it's easier for them to just make everything tri-lingual than to print seperate packaging for different markets. (Soft drinks are actually an exceptions to this, because unlike many companies that have only a few actual manufacturing plants that send their output all across the continent, soft drinks are mostly actually producted in local bottling plants that only serve a relatively small geographic area.) This can actually be a barrier to entry into certain markets for smaller companies, though.
Quote from: Razgovory
I wonder if I have a right to an English trial in Puerto Rico.
I
think that the answer is "yes" if you're charged with a crime under US federal law, but "no" if charged under Puerto Rican territoral law. I'm not sure about it either way, though.
Quote from: dps on August 22, 2011, 02:53:56 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 22, 2011, 01:38:48 PM
But seriously almost everything I buy in Texas is in three languages. But maybe we are classified as some sort of multi-language zone with so many Spanish speakers.
Most products you buy anywhere in the US are going to have at least English and Spanish labelling, and usually French as well--if you are buying products made by a major corporation. Major corporations (almost by definition) do business everywhere in North America, more-or-less, so it's easier for them to just make everything tri-lingual than to print seperate packaging for different markets. (Soft drinks are actually an exceptions to this, because unlike many companies that have only a few actual manufacturing plants that send their output all across the continent, soft drinks are mostly actually producted in local bottling plants that only serve a relatively small geographic area.) This can actually be a barrier to entry into certain markets for smaller companies, though.
Quote from: Razgovory
I wonder if I have a right to an English trial in Puerto Rico.
I think that the answer is "yes" if you're charged with a crime under US federal law, but "no" if charged under Puerto Rican territoral law. I'm not sure about it either way, though.
In a federal court, the Court Interpreter Act entitles you to an interpreter if you can't speak the language of the court.
Edit: On the other hand, the P.R. district court appears to do all of its official business in English, so yeah.
I can't find anything in the Leyes de Puerto Rico regarding interpreters for defendants, although courts must provide witnesses an interpreter.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 22, 2011, 05:02:03 PM
Quote from: dps on August 22, 2011, 02:53:56 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 22, 2011, 01:38:48 PM
But seriously almost everything I buy in Texas is in three languages. But maybe we are classified as some sort of multi-language zone with so many Spanish speakers.
Most products you buy anywhere in the US are going to have at least English and Spanish labelling, and usually French as well--if you are buying products made by a major corporation. Major corporations (almost by definition) do business everywhere in North America, more-or-less, so it's easier for them to just make everything tri-lingual than to print seperate packaging for different markets. (Soft drinks are actually an exceptions to this, because unlike many companies that have only a few actual manufacturing plants that send their output all across the continent, soft drinks are mostly actually producted in local bottling plants that only serve a relatively small geographic area.) This can actually be a barrier to entry into certain markets for smaller companies, though.
Quote from: Razgovory
I wonder if I have a right to an English trial in Puerto Rico.
I think that the answer is "yes" if you're charged with a crime under US federal law, but "no" if charged under Puerto Rican territoral law. I'm not sure about it either way, though.
In a federal court, the Court Interpreter Act entitles you to an interpreter if you can't speak the language of the court.
Edit: On the other hand, the P.R. district court appears to do all of its official business in English, so yeah.
I can't find anything in the Leyes de Puerto Rico regarding interpreters for defendants, although courts must provide witnesses an interpreter.
I'm pretty sure in almost any jurisdiction, you're entitled to an interpreter (how else could the court even get a plea out of a defendent?) but the original notion that Raz was responding to was about actually having the trial conducted in the language of the defendent, rather than merely having an interpreter.
I believe that's probably correct, and there's an executive order (applicable to states receiving federal monies) to that effect as well.
The whole trial? I'm sure Puerto Rico commonwealth cases are held Spanish, then, yeah. Although I believe the written records must be translated into English at some later point.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 22, 2011, 11:27:56 AM
I think you are ignoring that no airline could expend the kind of resources Grallon would require in order to give full voice to the "myth". Some degree of reasonableness is required which is the polar opposite of what happened in this case.
Air Canada is a good whipping boy because it has the most routes in Canada. What would Grallon want instead - no airline flying Quebec routes? That would be the alternative.
Every airline I've been on in East Asia the stewardesses spoke at least two languages, often three.
Why can't Air Canada do the same?
Quote from: dps on August 22, 2011, 08:19:58 PM
I'm pretty sure in almost any jurisdiction, you're entitled to an interpreter (how else could the court even get a plea out of a defendent?) but the original notion that Raz was responding to was about actually having the trial conducted in the language of the defendent, rather than merely having an interpreter.
You are correct sir. I imagine that many of the judges down in Rico are bilingual, but probably not all. I don't really understand why the Francophones have such a chip on their shoulder about this. This all sounds like minor grievances. If Canada defunded all the highways in Quebec or forced them to eat jellied Eel and spotted dick, I would think that is a legitimate beef. The three terrible crimes discussed in this thread are the adding of "Royal" to military units, the removal of a painting, and the failure to be served a 7-up by someone speaking French. It's like they are going around looking for things to offend them.
I think Canada is an excellent example why the US should not adopt an official language.
When I was a kid, I'd always wondered why so many products had warnings and such also transcribed in French. At the time, I thought it was for people in Louisiana. -_-
Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2011, 09:22:31 PM
You are correct sir. I imagine that many of the judges down in Rico are bilingual, but probably not all. I don't really understand why the Francophones have such a chip on their shoulder about this. This all sounds like minor grievances. If Canada defunded all the highways in Quebec or forced them to eat jellied Eel and spotted dick, I would think that is a legitimate beef. The three terrible crimes discussed in this thread are the adding of "Royal" to military units, the removal of a painting, and the failure to be served a 7-up by someone speaking French. It's like they are going around looking for things to offend them.
I think Canada is an excellent example why the US should not adopt an official language.
I think on the language bit - is that if no one stands up for the French language in Canada, it will eventually fade out. Clearly it would have been much easier for the 7-Up complainer to just order in English (as he knew it) - and if you follow along in the vein of convenience - there's very little reason to maintain French over the long haul. Infinitely more convenient to speak in a language that most everyone understands. That has to be grating in a country like Canada where French is listed as an official language. Make it too much of a hassle for people to speak one of the official languages - and why would they keep using it?
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2011, 08:33:24 AM
I think on the language bit - is that if no one stands up for the French language in Canada, it will eventually fade out. Clearly it would have been much easier for the 7-Up complainer to just order in English (as he knew it) - and if you follow along in the vein of convenience - there's very little reason to maintain French over the long haul. Infinitely more convenient to speak in a language that most everyone understands. That has to be grating in a country like Canada where French is listed as an official language. Make it too much of a hassle for people to speak one of the official languages - and why would they keep using it?
Yeah that is my read on the thinking of 7-Up guy. He has an agenda, this is not a matter of him just having hurt feelings about soft drinks.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 22, 2011, 09:25:02 PM
When I was a kid, I'd always wondered why so many products had warnings and such also transcribed in French. At the time, I thought it was for people in Louisiana. -_-
Now you have come to realize Cajuns don't read.
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2011, 08:33:24 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2011, 09:22:31 PM
You are correct sir. I imagine that many of the judges down in Rico are bilingual, but probably not all. I don't really understand why the Francophones have such a chip on their shoulder about this. This all sounds like minor grievances. If Canada defunded all the highways in Quebec or forced them to eat jellied Eel and spotted dick, I would think that is a legitimate beef. The three terrible crimes discussed in this thread are the adding of "Royal" to military units, the removal of a painting, and the failure to be served a 7-up by someone speaking French. It's like they are going around looking for things to offend them.
I think Canada is an excellent example why the US should not adopt an official language.
I think on the language bit - is that if no one stands up for the French language in Canada, it will eventually fade out. Clearly it would have been much easier for the 7-Up complainer to just order in English (as he knew it) - and if you follow along in the vein of convenience - there's very little reason to maintain French over the long haul. Infinitely more convenient to speak in a language that most everyone understands. That has to be grating in a country like Canada where French is listed as an official language. Make it too much of a hassle for people to speak one of the official languages - and why would they keep using it?
If you have to pass a law to convince people to speak some language, then the language is already dead. You are just trying to put it on life support.
And nobody is "making it a hassle", it might BE a hassle, but not taking active measures to accomodate soft drink orderers is not "making it a hassle", it is just not making it NOT a hassle.
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2011, 08:34:20 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2011, 08:33:24 AM
I think on the language bit - is that if no one stands up for the French language in Canada, it will eventually fade out. Clearly it would have been much easier for the 7-Up complainer to just order in English (as he knew it) - and if you follow along in the vein of convenience - there's very little reason to maintain French over the long haul. Infinitely more convenient to speak in a language that most everyone understands. That has to be grating in a country like Canada where French is listed as an official language. Make it too much of a hassle for people to speak one of the official languages - and why would they keep using it?
Yeah that is my read on the thinking of 7-Up guy. He has an agenda, this is not a matter of him just having hurt feelings about soft drinks.
The problem with stuff like this is that it just gives your opponents the change to trivialize your goals. It makes it easy to turn it from a real issue about the relative importance of a minority culture and their rights into "Oh man, that guy is suing because he could not order a 7-Up in French! This is so petty!"
Quote from: Berkut on August 23, 2011, 08:36:04 AM
If you have to pass a law to convince people to speak some language, then the language is already dead. You are just trying to put it on life support.
And nobody is "making it a hassle", it might BE a hassle, but not taking active measures to accomodate soft drink orderers is not "making it a hassle", it is just not making it NOT a hassle.
Oh I agree on that first statement, however, it is easy for me to as I'm not part of a dying culture.
On the second, this is just one of the many things he has complained about. I believe one of the articles I saw had him winning a victory to get buses in Ottawa to have comments in French. I don't agree with him that it is offensive - but if a country is going to say it has two languages, they should manage that.
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2011, 08:42:32 AM
but if a country is going to say it has two languages, they should manage that.
Yes. Either they comply with the law, or they repel it. Should be simple enough to understand to Canadians. But it seems too hard for most of them, unfortunately.
Quote from: Berkut on August 23, 2011, 08:36:04 AM
If you have to pass a law to convince people to speak some language, then the language is already dead.
You have to remind me when French was alive in Alberta and British Columbia.
I think the purpose of the law was to introduce it to places it does not naturally live than preserve it where it is dying out. You know for national solidarity and all that good stuff.
Quote from: viper37 on August 23, 2011, 08:57:15 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2011, 08:42:32 AM
but if a country is going to say it has two languages, they should manage that.
Yes. Either they comply with the law, or they repel it. Should be simple enough to understand to Canadians. But it seems too hard for most of them, unfortunately.
Meh, there are lots of laws that are not enforced but nobody bothers to repeal.
Wouldn't the easiest solution be just chopping of Quebec? I mean really, let them go be their own "country", I am sure it would work out great for them. They could all refuse to speak English to each other and the rest of North America would have something to laugh at. Sounds like a sure win-win.
Quote from: viper37 on August 23, 2011, 08:57:15 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2011, 08:42:32 AM
but if a country is going to say it has two languages, they should manage that.
Yes. Either they comply with the law, or they repel it. Should be simple enough to understand to Canadians. But it seems too hard for most of them, unfortunately.
I suppose the opposite thought is that if it is an official language there will be at least some places where one will be able to use either language freely - where with no mandate, that's would happen as often as it does here in the US for some languages. However, I can imagine that such is not particularly palatable, as a haphazard implementation has to be annoying - never knowing whether or not you'll be able to use French in a particular locale, establishment or service.
Quote from: Berkut on August 23, 2011, 09:01:43 AM
Meh, there are lots of laws that are not enforced but nobody bothers to repeal.
Wouldn't the easiest solution be just chopping of Quebec? I mean really, let them go be their own "country", I am sure it would work out great for them. They could all refuse to speak English to each other and the rest of North America would have something to laugh at. Sounds like a sure win-win.
Ok now you are just being a hater.
Hmmm.........I had the impression that the linguistic divide between Quebec and the rest of Canada was getting greater in recent decades. ie that French is getting stronger in its Quebec redoubt but the remainder of the country is becoming totally Anglo.
Is this the case, or am I under a false impression?
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 23, 2011, 09:06:21 AM
Hmmm.........I had the impression that the linguistic divide between Quebec and the rest of Canada was getting greater in recent decades. ie that French is getting stronger in its Quebec redoubt but the remainder of the country is becoming totally Anglo.
Is this the case, or am I under a false impression?
I think it is a false impression. I think French is not getting particularly stronger Quebec with immigrants coming in and Quebeckers no longer having babies. It was never really a factor in the west.
The status of French in Ontario and the Maritimes may be suffering, so you may be right there, though I am not sure.
Quote from: Berkut on August 23, 2011, 08:36:04 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2011, 08:33:24 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2011, 09:22:31 PM
You are correct sir. I imagine that many of the judges down in Rico are bilingual, but probably not all. I don't really understand why the Francophones have such a chip on their shoulder about this. This all sounds like minor grievances. If Canada defunded all the highways in Quebec or forced them to eat jellied Eel and spotted dick, I would think that is a legitimate beef. The three terrible crimes discussed in this thread are the adding of "Royal" to military units, the removal of a painting, and the failure to be served a 7-up by someone speaking French. It's like they are going around looking for things to offend them.
I think Canada is an excellent example why the US should not adopt an official language.
I think on the language bit - is that if no one stands up for the French language in Canada, it will eventually fade out. Clearly it would have been much easier for the 7-Up complainer to just order in English (as he knew it) - and if you follow along in the vein of convenience - there's very little reason to maintain French over the long haul. Infinitely more convenient to speak in a language that most everyone understands. That has to be grating in a country like Canada where French is listed as an official language. Make it too much of a hassle for people to speak one of the official languages - and why would they keep using it?
If you have to pass a law to convince people to speak some language, then the language is already dead. You are just trying to put it on life support.
And nobody is "making it a hassle", it might BE a hassle, but not taking active measures to accomodate soft drink orderers is not "making it a hassle", it is just not making it NOT a hassle.
The thing is, in the not-too-distant pass, the Canadian government DID make it a hassle for people to use French, and the French-speaking community there has a legitimate gripe about that. But I agree with you that while reasonable accomodation should be made for French speakers, it seems that many French-speaking Canadians want things to go way beyond what is reasonable. For example, the guy in the story doesn't
need accomodation--he could have easily ordered his damn 7-UP in English. A person who spoke only French would have a much more legitimate complaint IMO (though still not worth half a mil). It's been suggested that there were French-speaking stewardesses on the flight, and he deliberately picked one that didn't speak French to ask for the 7-UP. Now, I don't know that that's the case, but if it is, it makes him even more of a dick. It's just not reasonable to expect that every employee of the government or of a quasi-government organization be able to speak French. But, given the situation in Canada, it IS reasonable to have someone available who does speak it (maybe not in some little post office in a tiny little town where there's no French speakers living anywhere nearby, and the postmaster [if Canadian post offices in tiny little places are anything like US post offices in very small communities] might well be the only staff), but on an Dandadian airliner where there are, what, at least half a dozen stewardresses (or stewards), well, it's not unreasonable that at least 1 of them be expected to know French.
Quote from: viper37 on August 23, 2011, 08:57:15 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2011, 08:42:32 AM
but if a country is going to say it has two languages, they should manage that.
Yes. Either they comply with the law, or they repel it. Should be simple enough to understand to Canadians. But it seems too hard for most of them, unfortunately.
Well - the question is whether Air Canada should have a special law that forces it to comply with the Official Languages Act, while no other airline does.
Uhhh, the "law" or whatever demands that EVERY single stewardess speaks French? Seriously?
That would be a stunningly stupid law if it was the case.
I could maybe see a law that says that there be someone who speaks enough French to adequately communicate with French speaking customers, but all of them? That is just plain silly.
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2011, 09:13:12 AM
Quote from: viper37 on August 23, 2011, 08:57:15 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2011, 08:42:32 AM
but if a country is going to say it has two languages, they should manage that.
Yes. Either they comply with the law, or they repel it. Should be simple enough to understand to Canadians. But it seems too hard for most of them, unfortunately.
Well - the question is whether Air Canada should have a special law that forces it to comply with the Official Languages Act, while no other airline does.
It's really beyond that though as the Mr. T in question in this study has more on his agenda than just Air Canada. It'd be disingenuous to limit the discussion to that sole issue.
Quote from: Berkut on August 23, 2011, 09:14:32 AM
Uhhh, the "law" or whatever demands that EVERY single stewardess speaks French? Seriously?
That would be a stunningly stupid law if it was the case.
I could maybe see a law that says that there be someone who speaks enough French to adequately communicate with French speaking customers, but all of them? That is just plain silly.
Eh if every uneducated peasant Slavic member of the Austrian military could understand enough German to follow orders I am sure educated Canadians can learn enough to serve a customer on a plane. I mean how much French does that really require?
Not sure if that is the requirement though.
Quote from: Berkut on August 23, 2011, 09:14:32 AM
Uhhh, the "law" or whatever demands that EVERY single stewardess speaks French? Seriously?
That would be a stunningly stupid law if it was the case.
I could maybe see a law that says that there be someone who speaks enough French to adequately communicate with French speaking customers, but all of them? That is just plain silly.
I like how you read little that has been said in a thread but are quick to mash the buttons on your keyboard in some level of outrage.
Here's one of the faults that Air Canada admitted to:
QuoteAir Canada actually admitted breaches of the law in four instances, such as:
No translation of an announcement made in English by the pilot concerning the arrival time and weather on flight AC8622 flying the Atlanta-Toronto route on Feb. 1, 2009: Air Canada acknowledges that the announcement should have been translated by the flight attendant (who was bilingual) because it was a flight on which there was significant demand for services in French.
http://boardingarea.com/blogs/viewfromthewing/2011/07/15/man-awarded-12000-for-air-canadas-failure-to-serve-him-7-up-in-french/
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2011, 09:16:36 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 23, 2011, 09:14:32 AM
Uhhh, the "law" or whatever demands that EVERY single stewardess speaks French? Seriously?
That would be a stunningly stupid law if it was the case.
I could maybe see a law that says that there be someone who speaks enough French to adequately communicate with French speaking customers, but all of them? That is just plain silly.
Eh if every uneducated peasant Slavic member of the Austrian military could understand enough German to follow orders I am sure educated Canadians can learn enough to serve a customer on a plane. I mean how much French does that really require?
We have really bad french taught to us anglos until grade 9. But it focuses way to much on the written/reading aspect (and congugation, god i hate hated that). should really concentrate more on conversational french.
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2011, 09:16:36 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 23, 2011, 09:14:32 AM
Uhhh, the "law" or whatever demands that EVERY single stewardess speaks French? Seriously?
That would be a stunningly stupid law if it was the case.
I could maybe see a law that says that there be someone who speaks enough French to adequately communicate with French speaking customers, but all of them? That is just plain silly.
Eh if every uneducated peasant Slavic member of the Austrian military could understand enough German to follow orders I am sure educated Canadians can learn enough to serve a customer on a plane. I mean how much French does that really require?
I've never had a hard time getting service on flights to China, and some of those stewardesses spoke Korean as well.
Quote from: HVC on August 23, 2011, 09:19:20 AM
We have really bad french taught to us anglos until grade 9. But it focuses way to much on the written/reading aspect (and congugation, god i hate hated that). should really concentrate more on conversational french.
Especially since conjugation in French is not that important conversational wise. Alot of it sounds the same (Fais, Fais, Fait) and the French speaker can figure out what you meant by the context even if you get the grammar wrong. Also writing in French is really hard compared to speaking it....and taking dictation is a nightmaire.
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2011, 09:09:08 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 23, 2011, 09:06:21 AM
Hmmm.........I had the impression that the linguistic divide between Quebec and the rest of Canada was getting greater in recent decades. ie that French is getting stronger in its Quebec redoubt but the remainder of the country is becoming totally Anglo.
Is this the case, or am I under a false impression?
I think it is a false impression. I think French is not getting particularly stronger Quebec with immigrants coming in and Quebeckers no longer having babies. It was never really a factor in the west.
The status of French in Ontario and the Maritimes may be suffering, so you may be right there, though I am not sure.
Guys - French is thriving in the West. Almost every community now has entire Francophone schools - not French classes, not French immersion, but schools where the students come in speaking french, and are taught in French.
Now it's true that the dominant language is English, and that's not going to change. But the French language in Western Canada is stronger than its been for 40 years.
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2011, 09:24:48 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2011, 09:09:08 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 23, 2011, 09:06:21 AM
Hmmm.........I had the impression that the linguistic divide between Quebec and the rest of Canada was getting greater in recent decades. ie that French is getting stronger in its Quebec redoubt but the remainder of the country is becoming totally Anglo.
Is this the case, or am I under a false impression?
I think it is a false impression. I think French is not getting particularly stronger Quebec with immigrants coming in and Quebeckers no longer having babies. It was never really a factor in the west.
The status of French in Ontario and the Maritimes may be suffering, so you may be right there, though I am not sure.
Guys - French is thriving in the West. Almost every community now has entire Francophone schools - not French classes, not French immersion, but schools where the students come in speaking french, and are taught in French.
Now it's true that the dominant language is English, and that's not going to change. But the French language in Western Canada is stronger than its been for 40 years.
they're sandwhiching us in :o . Soon we shall be cut off from the sea :ph34r:
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2011, 09:17:18 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 23, 2011, 09:14:32 AM
Uhhh, the "law" or whatever demands that EVERY single stewardess speaks French? Seriously?
That would be a stunningly stupid law if it was the case.
I could maybe see a law that says that there be someone who speaks enough French to adequately communicate with French speaking customers, but all of them? That is just plain silly.
I like how you read little that has been said in a thread but are quick to mash the buttons on your keyboard in some level of outrage.
I like how you interpret asking a question based on a post that someone else rather clearly made and then act like a d-bag about it.
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2011, 09:24:48 AM
[Guys - French is thriving in the West. Almost every community now has entire Francophone schools - not French classes, not French immersion, but schools where the students come in speaking french, and are taught in French.
Now it's true that the dominant language is English, and that's not going to change. But the French language in Western Canada is stronger than its been for 40 years.
Do you plan on taking advantage of this for your kids? :hmm:
Quote from: Berkut on August 23, 2011, 10:06:34 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2011, 09:17:18 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 23, 2011, 09:14:32 AM
Uhhh, the "law" or whatever demands that EVERY single stewardess speaks French? Seriously?
That would be a stunningly stupid law if it was the case.
I could maybe see a law that says that there be someone who speaks enough French to adequately communicate with French speaking customers, but all of them? That is just plain silly.
I like how you read little that has been said in a thread but are quick to mash the buttons on your keyboard in some level of outrage.
I like how you interpret asking a question based on a post that someone else rather clearly made and then act like a d-bag about it.
Except your questions came across as hypotheticals - rhetorical questions. "Stunningly stupid" "That is just plain silly." You added a lot of judgment after both questions.
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2011, 10:07:28 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2011, 09:24:48 AM
[Guys - French is thriving in the West. Almost every community now has entire Francophone schools - not French classes, not French immersion, but schools where the students come in speaking french, and are taught in French.
Now it's true that the dominant language is English, and that's not going to change. But the French language in Western Canada is stronger than its been for 40 years.
Do you plan on taking advantage of this for your kids? :hmm:
My kid wouldn't qualify for Francophone school - we don't speak French at home.
Being boring suburbanites, we bought a house in a neighborhood with a very good elementary school with closed enrollment (i.e. you must live in the area for your kid to go to that school). It's not specifically a french immersion school though. :(
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2011, 10:15:53 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 23, 2011, 10:06:34 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2011, 09:17:18 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 23, 2011, 09:14:32 AM
Uhhh, the "law" or whatever demands that EVERY single stewardess speaks French? Seriously?
That would be a stunningly stupid law if it was the case.
I could maybe see a law that says that there be someone who speaks enough French to adequately communicate with French speaking customers, but all of them? That is just plain silly.
I like how you read little that has been said in a thread but are quick to mash the buttons on your keyboard in some level of outrage.
I like how you interpret asking a question based on a post that someone else rather clearly made and then act like a d-bag about it.
Except your questions came across as hypotheticals - rhetorical questions. "Stunningly stupid" "That is just plain silly." You added a lot of judgment after both questions.
No, you need to learn how to read without assumptions.
I said rather clearly that it would be "stunningly stupid" IF IT WAS THE CASE.
But whatever, if you want to play the d-bag, it's not like reason is going to stop you.
Quote from: Berkut on August 23, 2011, 10:19:29 AM
But whatever, if you want to play the d-bag, it's not like reason is going to stop you.
That's his schtick. You don't even need to respond to it. After all these years, he isn't going to stop just because someone asks.
Quote from: Berkut on August 23, 2011, 10:19:29 AM
No, you need to learn how to read without assumptions.
I said rather clearly that it would be "stunningly stupid" IF IT WAS THE CASE.
But whatever, if you want to play the d-bag, it's not like reason is going to stop you.
Yeah as if your posts are in a vacuum. You've been railing against the French Canadian position in this thread. You clearly brought up those questions with the goal of finding additional proof that they are annoying, whiny gits.
After all, only minutes before you brought us this gem:
Quote from: BerkutWouldn't the easiest solution be just chopping of Quebec? I mean really, let them go be their own "country", I am sure it would work out great for them. They could all refuse to speak English to each other and the rest of North America would have something to laugh at. Sounds like a sure win-win.
If it makes me a "d-bag" to call your ass out, so be it.
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2011, 10:19:19 AM
My kid wouldn't qualify for Francophone school - we don't speak French at home.
Being boring suburbanites, we bought a house in a neighborhood with a very good elementary school with closed enrollment (i.e. you must live in the area for your kid to go to that school). It's not specifically a french immersion school though. :(
Are there French immersion classes (like summer camps) for kids in the west?
My younger cousins attended some summer camps like that, to learn english.
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2011, 10:30:12 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 23, 2011, 10:19:29 AM
No, you need to learn how to read without assumptions.
I said rather clearly that it would be "stunningly stupid" IF IT WAS THE CASE.
But whatever, if you want to play the d-bag, it's not like reason is going to stop you.
Yeah as if your posts are in a vacuum. You've been railing against the French Canadian position in this thread. You clearly brought up those questions with the goal of finding additional proof that they are annoying, whiny gits.
Oh, so now you know why I post, even if I state explicitly that I am asking a question?
Hell, I was asking what the law was - how would the law turn someone into a whiny git? I said the law was stupid, if it was as stated. I did not say a word about the Canadian French in the post you accused me of being "outraged" about.
Quote
After all, only minutes before you brought us this gem:
Quote from: BerkutWouldn't the easiest solution be just chopping of Quebec? I mean really, let them go be their own "country", I am sure it would work out great for them. They could all refuse to speak English to each other and the rest of North America would have something to laugh at. Sounds like a sure win-win.
That is called a joke. Unwad your tender sensibilities.
Quote
If it makes me a "d-bag" to call your ass out, so be it.
No, what makes you a d-bag is acting like a d-bag and then backpedaling when you get called out on it. But grumbler is right, this is your "thing", and I guess you need something to separate you from everyone else. You are a special and unique flower.
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2011, 08:42:32 AM
but if a country is going to say it has two languages, they should manage that.
We do "manage it". It is a question of degree. So I will ask you the same question the Oex has not yet answered. Should the Federal government employ a french speaking employee in a community where there is zero chance someone will seek their services in French or should some reasonable judgments be made about the allocation of resources.
What this guy is doing is pushing at the edges of what is reasonable.
Quote from: viper37 on August 23, 2011, 10:34:47 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2011, 10:19:19 AM
My kid wouldn't qualify for Francophone school - we don't speak French at home.
Being boring suburbanites, we bought a house in a neighborhood with a very good elementary school with closed enrollment (i.e. you must live in the area for your kid to go to that school). It's not specifically a french immersion school though. :(
Are there French immersion classes (like summer camps) for kids in the west?
My younger cousins attended some summer camps like that, to learn english.
Don't know about out west, but there are in ontario. Knew a girl who went to french immersion and that school also offered afternnon and summer classes (whether or not you were a regular student). Don't now how wide spread it is though. But since i know of tonnes of portugese courses (i went to two classes before i bitched my way out of it) i assume there has to be french ones too.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2011, 10:36:34 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2011, 08:42:32 AM
but if a country is going to say it has two languages, they should manage that.
We do "manage it". It is a question of degree. So I will ask you the same question the Oex has not yet answered. Should the Federal government employ a french speaking employee in a community where there is zero chance someone will seek their services in French or should some reasonable judgments be made about the allocation of resources.
What this guy is doing is pushing at the edges of what is reasonable.
It strikes me as the kind of thing that if every single stewardess on that flight spoke French, he would be suing about something else. Because the goal isn't really about making sure that the current level of support for French speakers is adequate, it is about making it clear that there is no adequate level of support possible.
I think he fails though by choosing such a trivial topic, it just makes him easily dismissed.
Quote from: viper37 on August 23, 2011, 10:34:47 AM
Are there French immersion classes (like summer camps) for kids in the west?
My younger cousins attended some summer camps like that, to learn english.
Yes, My son attended one this summer. I am not sure why you would be surprised to learn that. Fyi French immersion classes are in very high demand here and French language classes are part of the course of study mandated by the Province in all schools.
So what was your point?
Quote from: Berkut on August 23, 2011, 10:38:36 AM
Because the goal isn't really about making sure that the current level of support for French speakers is adequate, it is about making it clear that there is no adequate level of support possible.
That is certainly the view I get from Viper and Grallon.
Not sure where Oex stands on the issue though.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2011, 10:38:52 AM
Quote from: viper37 on August 23, 2011, 10:34:47 AM
Are there French immersion classes (like summer camps) for kids in the west?
My younger cousins attended some summer camps like that, to learn english.
Yes, My son attended one this summer. I am not sure why you would be surprised to learn that.
Becasue us anglos hate french, tabernac!
:p to be fair it doesn't look like it would suprise him, more that he was curious.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2011, 10:39:58 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 23, 2011, 10:38:36 AM
Because the goal isn't really about making sure that the current level of support for French speakers is adequate, it is about making it clear that there is no adequate level of support possible.
That is certainly the view I get from Viper and Grallon.
Not sure where Oex stands on the issue though.
i thought Viper was more level headed on the french in canada thing (though apparently he
really hates his queen :lol:
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2011, 10:36:34 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2011, 08:42:32 AM
but if a country is going to say it has two languages, they should manage that.
We do "manage it". It is a question of degree. So I will ask you the same question the Oex has not yet answered. Should the Federal government employ a french speaking employee in a community where there is zero chance someone will seek their services in French or should some reasonable judgments be made about the allocation of resources.
What this guy is doing is pushing at the edges of what is reasonable.
umm... The Feds do employ french speaking people in every community where the Federal government has an office for just that eventuality. Not every employee speaks French, but enough do that you can be offered service in either official language.
But could you order Winnipeg Jets tickets in French?
Quote from: Berkut on August 23, 2011, 10:35:09 AM
Oh, so now you know why I post, even if I state explicitly that I am asking a question?
No, although what I've quoted is another example of a loaded question. I don't think that you were looking for the real answer - given that a) the law had already been discussed earlier in the thread (/would be easy to lookup) and how you were so quick to state that you'd denounce it, if it was setup the way you thought it might be.
Quote from: Berkut on August 23, 2011, 10:35:09 AMHell, I was asking what the law was - how would the law turn someone into a whiny git? I said the law was stupid, if it was as stated. I did not say a word about the Canadian French in the post you accused me of being "outraged" about.
Again, that was not the only post you have made in this thread. You've made your contempt apparent.
Quote from: Berkut on August 23, 2011, 10:35:09 AM
That is called a joke. Unwad your tender sensibilities.
So are you stating that your joke was completely irrelevant to the points you were making about these antics by French Canadians?
Quote from: Berkut on August 23, 2011, 10:35:09 AM
No, what makes you a d-bag is acting like a d-bag and then backpedaling when you get called out on it. But grumbler is right, this is your "thing", and I guess you need something to separate you from everyone else. You are a special and unique flower.
Where am I backpedaling? :huh:
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2011, 10:36:34 AM
We do "manage it". It is a question of degree. So I will ask you the same question the Oex has not yet answered. Should the Federal government employ a french speaking employee in a community where there is zero chance someone will seek their services in French or should some reasonable judgments be made about the allocation of resources.
I've no idea. I suppose it depends on how important the narrative of bilingualism is to the country.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2011, 10:36:34 AM
What this guy is doing is pushing at the edges of what is reasonable.
I don't agree with that individual at all - but I am trying to think through his position, as I don't think trivializing it will not make it disappear.
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2011, 10:45:40 AM
But could you order Winnipeg Jets tickets in French?
You can't order Winnipeg Jets ticket in any language. Stupid three year sellout. <_<
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2011, 10:55:25 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2011, 10:45:40 AM
But could you order Winnipeg Jets tickets in French?
You can't order Winnipeg Jets ticket in any language. Stupid three year sellout. <_<
Scalpers are your only hope. will you conscious let you break the law to see a game :ph34r:
Actually, is it illegal to buy, or just sell?
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2011, 10:55:25 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2011, 10:45:40 AM
But could you order Winnipeg Jets tickets in French?
You can't order Winnipeg Jets ticket in any language. Stupid three year sellout. <_<
:console:
Quote from: HVC on August 23, 2011, 10:56:35 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2011, 10:55:25 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2011, 10:45:40 AM
But could you order Winnipeg Jets tickets in French?
You can't order Winnipeg Jets ticket in any language. Stupid three year sellout. <_<
Scalpers are your only hope. will you conscious let you break the law to see a game :ph34r:
Actually, is it illegal to buy, or just sell?
I'm only charged with prosecuting offences in Alberta. Winnipeg is well outside my jurisdiction. :ph34r:
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2011, 10:58:32 AM
Quote from: HVC on August 23, 2011, 10:56:35 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2011, 10:55:25 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2011, 10:45:40 AM
But could you order Winnipeg Jets tickets in French?
You can't order Winnipeg Jets ticket in any language. Stupid three year sellout. <_<
Scalpers are your only hope. will you conscious let you break the law to see a game :ph34r:
Actually, is it illegal to buy, or just sell?
I'm only charged with prosecuting offences in Alberta. Winnipeg is well outside my jurisdiction. :ph34r:
might as well smoke pot there too, hypocrit :rolleyes:
:P
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2011, 10:43:12 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2011, 10:36:34 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2011, 08:42:32 AM
but if a country is going to say it has two languages, they should manage that.
We do "manage it". It is a question of degree. So I will ask you the same question the Oex has not yet answered. Should the Federal government employ a french speaking employee in a community where there is zero chance someone will seek their services in French or should some reasonable judgments be made about the allocation of resources.
What this guy is doing is pushing at the edges of what is reasonable.
umm... The Feds do employ french speaking people in every community where the Federal government has an office for just that eventuality. Not every employee speaks French, but enough do that you can be offered service in either official language.
Have you ever heard these so called bilingual employees actually speak French? I think you have consumed too much of the cool aid and are simply reciting the mantra. FYI when I worked in customs we too had a designated french speaker. She wasnt very good at it and often times when she was needed she could not be found or not working that day - and that was at an International airport where for sure one could expect French speakers from all over the world.
I am willing to bet my house that if I took one of my sons to the Post Office in Quesnel and they started speaking french on anything but a basic level no one would really understand them.
Which is really the point Oex was making.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2011, 11:01:19 AM
Have you ever heard these so called bilingual employees actually speak French? I think you have consumed too much of the cool aid and are simply reciting the mantra. FYI when I worked in customs we too had a designated french speaker. She wasnt very good at it and often times when she was needed she could not be found or not working that day - and that was at an International airport where for sure one could expect French speakers from all over the world.
I am willing to bet my house that if I took one of my sons to the Post Office in Quesnel and they started speaking french on anything but a basic level no one would really understand them.
Which is really the point Oex was making.
You mean did I ever hear the two prosecutors in our office from Quebec speak French? I certainly did. Our receptionist was always bilingual as well.
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2011, 11:03:58 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2011, 11:01:19 AM
Have you ever heard these so called bilingual employees actually speak French? I think you have consumed too much of the cool aid and are simply reciting the mantra. FYI when I worked in customs we too had a designated french speaker. She wasnt very good at it and often times when she was needed she could not be found or not working that day - and that was at an International airport where for sure one could expect French speakers from all over the world.
I am willing to bet my house that if I took one of my sons to the Post Office in Quesnel and they started speaking french on anything but a basic level no one would really understand them.
Which is really the point Oex was making.
You mean did I ever hear the two prosecutors in our office from Quebec speak French? I certainly did. Our receptionist was always bilingual as well.
I am sure you will agree the two prosectors from Quebec are significantly different from hiring someone form Quesnel who took a few French courses and is now the "bilingual" employee who will be giving service in French in that small town.
You have already told us that your office carries out trials in French. Obviously that is a special case. Is it your position that in all of the other services that will rarely if ever require french to be spoken their are French speakers who speak french as well as the people in your office?
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2011, 11:07:34 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2011, 11:03:58 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2011, 11:01:19 AM
Have you ever heard these so called bilingual employees actually speak French? I think you have consumed too much of the cool aid and are simply reciting the mantra. FYI when I worked in customs we too had a designated french speaker. She wasnt very good at it and often times when she was needed she could not be found or not working that day - and that was at an International airport where for sure one could expect French speakers from all over the world.
I am willing to bet my house that if I took one of my sons to the Post Office in Quesnel and they started speaking french on anything but a basic level no one would really understand them.
Which is really the point Oex was making.
You mean did I ever hear the two prosecutors in our office from Quebec speak French? I certainly did. Our receptionist was always bilingual as well.
I am sure you will agree the two prosectors from Quebec are significantly different from hiring someone form Quesnel who took a few French courses and is now the "bilingual" employee who will be giving service in French in that small town.
You have already told us that your office carries out trials in French. Obviously that is a special case. Is it your position that in all of the other services that will rarely if ever require french to be spoken their are French speakers who speak french as well as the people in your office?
Is the goal to provide a adequate level of service to French speakers, or is it to employ more native French speakers?
Why do they need to speak French "well"? Isn't just being able to communicate what is needed adequate?
They have to be able to convey bitter resentment and delusions of relevance.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2011, 11:07:34 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2011, 11:03:58 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2011, 11:01:19 AM
Have you ever heard these so called bilingual employees actually speak French? I think you have consumed too much of the cool aid and are simply reciting the mantra. FYI when I worked in customs we too had a designated french speaker. She wasnt very good at it and often times when she was needed she could not be found or not working that day - and that was at an International airport where for sure one could expect French speakers from all over the world.
I am willing to bet my house that if I took one of my sons to the Post Office in Quesnel and they started speaking french on anything but a basic level no one would really understand them.
Which is really the point Oex was making.
You mean did I ever hear the two prosecutors in our office from Quebec speak French? I certainly did. Our receptionist was always bilingual as well.
I am sure you will agree the two prosectors from Quebec are significantly different from hiring someone form Quesnel who took a few French courses and is now the "bilingual" employee who will be giving service in French in that small town.
You have already told us that your office carries out trials in French. Obviously that is a special case. Is it your position that in all of the other services that will rarely if ever require french to be spoken their are French speakers who speak french as well as the people in your office?
No - most federal offices probably don't import Quebecers. But yes - it is my understanding that all Federal offices will have someone who speaks French (though not as a first language) to be able to provide French language service.
I'm not quite sure why you bring up Quesnel. I rather doubt they even have any Federal Government offices there. Remember most government services are provided by the province.
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2011, 11:17:46 AM
I'm not quite sure why you bring up Quesnel. I rather doubt they even have any Federal Government offices there. Remember most government services are provided by the province.
I bring up Quesnel becuase it has a post office (Federal) and is a community that has at best a small number of people who would have French as a first language to illustrate the point that you are incorrect in your assertion that the Federal government provides all services in French and English. They may do so on paper but the reality is quite different. Which again is I think the point Oex was making.
Quote from: The Brain on August 23, 2011, 11:16:23 AM
They have to be able to convey bitter resentment and delusions of relevance.
:lol:
Quote from: Berkut on August 23, 2011, 11:13:58 AM
Is the goal to provide a adequate level of service to French speakers, or is it to employ more native French speakers?
Why do they need to speak French "well"? Isn't just being able to communicate what is needed adequate?
I think the goal is to provide a reasonable level of service in French. Oex and I can quibble about what that might be. On the extremes you have BB who says all services are provided in French (which I say is not the reality - as shown by this case actually) and Viper/Grallon who say all services must be provided French or its a sham.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2011, 11:23:24 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2011, 11:17:46 AM
I'm not quite sure why you bring up Quesnel. I rather doubt they even have any Federal Government offices there. Remember most government services are provided by the province.
I bring up Quesnel becuase it has a post office (Federal) and is a community that has at best a small number of people who would have French as a second language to illustrate the point that you are incorrect in your assertion that the Federal government provides all services in French and English. They may do so on paper but the reality is quite different. Which again is I think the point Oex was making.
CanadaPost has privatized most of its post offices. I question whether they are required to provide bilingual services at every single post office.
ANyways, here's more than I ever wanted to know about Canada Post's efforts to be French:
http://www.canadapost.ca/cpo/mr/assets/pdf/aboutus/engfr_en.pdf
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2011, 11:27:22 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 23, 2011, 11:13:58 AM
Is the goal to provide a adequate level of service to French speakers, or is it to employ more native French speakers?
Why do they need to speak French "well"? Isn't just being able to communicate what is needed adequate?
I think the goal is to provide a reasonable level of service in French. Oex and I can quibble about what that might be. On the extremes you have BB who says all services are provided in French (which I say is not the reality - as shown by this case actually) and Viper/Grallon who say all services must be provided French or its a sham.
ZOMG - have I just been called an extreme bilingualist? :wacko:
If I was going to come up with some overall policy for the Federal government, it would be that all essential services must be provided in French - though not every employee need speak French, they must be able to connect you with one who does.
This case is a poor example, as I think it's ridiculous that Air Canada is subject to the Official Languages Act.
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2011, 11:33:36 AM
ZOMG - have I just been called an extreme bilingualist? :wacko:
You have won one Pierre Trudeau point for your devotion to blingualism in Canada! Congratulations!
Vous avez gagner un point de Pierre Trudeau pour votre dévouement à bilinguisme au Canada! Félicitations!
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2011, 11:42:13 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2011, 11:33:36 AM
ZOMG - have I just been called an extreme bilingualist? :wacko:
You have won one Pierre Trudeau for your devotion to blingualism in Canada! Congratulations!
Vous avez gagner un point de Pierre Trudeau pour votre devotion au bilinguisme au Canada! Félicitations!
You should have put the french first or someone will complain :P
Quote from: HVC on August 23, 2011, 11:43:29 AM
You should have put the french first or someone will complain :P
:lol:
And where's the 7-up?
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2011, 11:42:13 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2011, 11:33:36 AM
ZOMG - have I just been called an extreme bilingualist? :wacko:
You have won one Pierre Trudeau point for your devotion to blingualism in Canada! Congratulations!
Vous avez gagner un point de Pierre Trudeau pour votre dévouement à bilinguisme au Canada! Félicitations!
You really know how to insult a guy. :mad:
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2011, 11:42:13 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2011, 11:33:36 AM
ZOMG - have I just been called an extreme bilingualist? :wacko:
You have won one Pierre Trudeau point for your devotion to blingualism in Canada! Congratulations!
Vous avez gagné un point de Pierre Trudeau pour votre dévouement au bilinguisme au Canada! Félicitations!
FYP
Though the "gagner" (infinitive) instead of "gagné" (past participe) is a common mistake.
Let it be known, BB is no longer "Pleated Pants Man", now he shall be "Frenchie". Pass it along.
Whoops.
See when you say it it SOUNDS like you are saying the infinitive. Writing French is so much harder than speaking it...but that is probably true for English also.
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2011, 11:56:04 AM
Whoops.
See when you say it it SOUNDS like you are saying the infinitive. Writing French is so much harder than speaking it...but that is probably true for English also.
knight says it all.
I need to study a bit more if I ever plan on working for Air Canada.
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2011, 11:58:45 AM
I need to study a bit more if I ever plan on working for Air Canada.
No. No more dude stewards. Just no.
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2011, 11:56:04 AM
Whoops.
See when you say it it SOUNDS like you are saying the infinitive. Writing French is so much harder than speaking it...but that is probably true for English also.
Glad to have been of help :)
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2011, 11:42:13 AM
You have won one Pierre Trudeau point for your devotion to blingualism in Canada! Congratulations!
BB's trainining is complete. He has now come fully to the Dark Side.
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2011, 11:33:36 AM
ZOMG - have I just been called an extreme bilingualist? :wacko:
You are the guy that is trying to claim that all is fine since government services can always be obtained in French despite all the evidence to the contrary. That is about as exteme a position as one can take in support of bilingualism.
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2011, 11:44:28 AM
Quote from: HVC on August 23, 2011, 11:43:29 AM
You should have put the french first or someone will complain :P
:lol:
Also isn't there an issue with both having the same font size?
Quote from: HVC on August 23, 2011, 12:00:18 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2011, 11:58:45 AM
I need to study a bit more if I ever plan on working for Air Canada.
No. No more dude stewards. Just no.
I like male flight attendants. :)
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2011, 02:05:43 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2011, 11:44:28 AM
Quote from: HVC on August 23, 2011, 11:43:29 AM
You should have put the french first or someone will complain :P
:lol:
Also isn't there an issue with both having the same font size?
Good eye. You would do well with the language police.
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2011, 11:33:36 AM
This case is a poor example, as I think it's ridiculous that Air Canada is subject to the Official Languages Act.
Considering it's a private company, yes, it could be a poor example.
Considering they were allowed to merge with
Canadian airlines, form a near monopoly (I don't know the exact rule, but it's not just any transporter who can offer flights between canadian cities), get federal money, get some more federal money, again some more federal money and we don't know if they'll require again some federal money, I'd say they're nearing the status of a Crown corporation and it's normal they are subject to this law.
Maybe it's unfair. Maybe they shouldn't. But then, repeal the law, allow foreign competition to enter the market and let us choose based on a variety of factors.
Anyway, the point was not about Air Canada, but rather the reaction of many english canadians, even editorials and op-eds, about the whole situation rather than Air Canada non respect of their policies. If CC were to board an airplane with first class ticket and they just told him "sorry, we overbooked, you'll have to seat in economy", I'm sure he wouldn't settle for a smile and an handshake, especially if it keeps happening over&over.
It's not like it's something new for Air Canada.
Heh just came back from a business meeting with a major retailer, aimed at children's goods. Stores are opening across Canada. On the agenda: cost of expanding into Quebec, as presented by a (fancophone) partner from our Montreal office (I was speaking to federal CCPSA compliance).
Major problems: Quebec's consumer protection legislation forbids advertising directed at children; high cost of advertising language compliance - *all* advertising has to be "predominantly" in French, meaning the French version must be "markedly more prominant" than English. Trilingual advertising materials already in existance are not complaint, as all three languages are equally dominant.
Conclusions: the increased costs of entry make this the least desireable location in north america for expansion. The Montreal area is a major market, but high entry costs are a major deterent.
Quote from: viper37 on August 23, 2011, 02:15:08 PM
Anyway, the point was not about Air Canada, but rather the reaction of many english canadians, even editorials and op-eds, about the whole situation rather than Air Canada non respect of their policies. If CC were to board an airplane with first class ticket and they just told him "sorry, we overbooked, you'll have to seat in economy", I'm sure he wouldn't settle for a smile and an handshake, especially if it keeps happening over&over.
It's not like it's something new for Air Canada.
That's the point you have attempted to make. But most outside of Quebec see a rather different point to this story.
How can you fail to order a 7Up in French anyway? I mean, I don't speak French, but unless you were improperly translating the product name (JE VEUX UNE SEPT JUSQU'A) I don't even see the confusion.
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2011, 02:05:43 PM
Also isn't there an issue with both having the same font size?
Only for advertising. And btw there's no such thing as a language police, contrary to Canadian propaganda.
Unless you were to count all bureaucrats as policemen, that is.
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2011, 02:17:36 PM
That's the point you have attempted to make. But most outside of Quebec see a rather different point to this story.
Wich is why you guys should simply repeal the Official Languages Act instead of being hypocrites about it. What you and CC have essentially told us, like most English Canadians, is that these laws shouldn't be observed. You decide wich laws to observe and not.
Kinda silly for a lawyer when you think about it, but I suppose you guys would be poor if everyone followed the laws of their countries ;)
So, instead of saying there's a law, wich should be observed by everyone subjected to it, simply repeal it. People will then make a conscious choice: living in an officially unilingual country or creating their own. But no political party would have the guts for it. They'll just play they hypocrites, take the same complaints every year and file them in some obscure cabinet drawer.
Wich leads me to believe that a majority of English Canadians like this hypocrisy. On paper, they can say they're not Americans. When it comes to it, there's no difference, english must be predominant.
Quote from: viper37 on August 23, 2011, 02:15:08 PM
Anyway, the point was not about Air Canada, but rather the reaction of many english canadians, even editorials and op-eds, about the whole situation rather than Air Canada non respect of their policies. If CC were to board an airplane with first class ticket and they just told him "sorry, we overbooked, you'll have to seat in economy", I'm sure he wouldn't settle for a smile and an handshake, especially if it keeps happening over&over.
If they had a statutory duty to provide me with a first class ticket on all my flights I would do what Malthus suggested and bring an application for Mandamus requiring them to do so. Alternatively, if it happened often enough and they did not compensate me for my loss I would bring a claim for damages suffered - which in my case could be substantial. It would be cruel and unusual punishment to require a person of my size to sit in an economy seat.
Quote from: viper37 on August 23, 2011, 02:15:08 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2011, 11:33:36 AM
This case is a poor example, as I think it's ridiculous that Air Canada is subject to the Official Languages Act.
Considering it's a private company, yes, it could be a poor example.
Considering they were allowed to merge with Canadian airlines, form a near monopoly (I don't know the exact rule, but it's not just any transporter who can offer flights between canadian cities), get federal money, get some more federal money, again some more federal money and we don't know if they'll require again some federal money, I'd say they're nearing the status of a Crown corporation and it's normal they are subject to this law.
Maybe it's unfair. Maybe they shouldn't. But then, repeal the law, allow foreign competition to enter the market and let us choose based on a variety of factors.
Anyway, the point was not about Air Canada, but rather the reaction of many english canadians, even editorials and op-eds, about the whole situation rather than Air Canada non respect of their policies. If CC were to board an airplane with first class ticket and they just told him "sorry, we overbooked, you'll have to seat in economy", I'm sure he wouldn't settle for a smile and an handshake, especially if it keeps happening over&over.
It's not like it's something new for Air Canada.
:huh:
http://www.westjet.com/guest/fr/home.shtml
I think there is an exclusion of the middle here.
Seems like it should be possible to follow the law AND not be able to order 7-Up from a native French speaker on any and all flights within Canada.
Also, when I was bumped from a recent Air Canada flight, I got $200, not $20000.
Quote from: viper37 on August 23, 2011, 02:26:57 PM
Kinda silly for a lawyer when you think about it, but I suppose you guys would be poor if everyone followed the laws of their countries ;)
Actually I think the confusion arised from a lack of understanding as to how administrative law works in a case like this and the discretion given under the Act.
It took me a couple seconds to find an example of such discretion. And it actually answers the question I posed to you and Oex about having someone in Quesnel. You said yes. The Act says not necessarily.
QuoteEvery federal institution has the duty to ensure that any member of the public can communicate with and obtain available services from its head or central office in either official language, and has the same duty with respect to any of its other offices or facilities
(a) within the National Capital Region; or
(b) in Canada or elsewhere, where there is significant demand for communications with and services from that office or facility in that language.
Quote from: Berkut on August 23, 2011, 02:28:50 PM
I think there is an exclusion of the middle here.
Seems like it should be possible to follow the law AND not be able to order 7-Up from a native French speaker on any and all flights within Canada.
See my post above. It appears that is exactly the case. So we are really talking about someone trying to push the boundaries of what is reasonable.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2011, 02:27:33 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 23, 2011, 02:15:08 PM
Anyway, the point was not about Air Canada, but rather the reaction of many english canadians, even editorials and op-eds, about the whole situation rather than Air Canada non respect of their policies. If CC were to board an airplane with first class ticket and they just told him "sorry, we overbooked, you'll have to seat in economy", I'm sure he wouldn't settle for a smile and an handshake, especially if it keeps happening over&over.
If they had a statutory duty to provide me with a first class ticket on all my flights I would do what Malthus suggested and bring an application for Mandamus requiring them to do so. Alternatively, if it happened often enough and they did not compensate me for my loss I would bring a claim for damages suffered - which in my case could be substantial. It would be cruel and unusual punishment to require a person of my size to sit in an economy seat.
I'll bet real money that you have never filed an application for Mandamus in your life. :contract:
Quote from: viper37 on August 23, 2011, 02:26:57 PM
Wich is why you guys should simply repeal the Official Languages Act instead of being hypocrites about it. What you and CC have essentially told us, like most English Canadians, is that these laws shouldn't be observed. You decide wich laws to observe and not.
Kinda silly for a lawyer when you think about it, but I suppose you guys would be poor if everyone followed the laws of their countries ;)
So, instead of saying there's a law, wich should be observed by everyone subjected to it, simply repeal it. People will then make a conscious choice: living in an officially unilingual country or creating their own. But no political party would have the guts for it. They'll just play they hypocrites, take the same complaints every year and file them in some obscure cabinet drawer.
Wich leads me to believe that a majority of English Canadians like this hypocrisy. On paper, they can say they're not Americans. When it comes to it, there's no difference, english must be predominant.
:huh:
Not demonstrating perfect compliance isn't the same as not seeing any value to the law; dissapproving of vexatious litigation is not the same as saying that the laws should not be observed.
Seems to me that, for reasons of your own, you dislike the notion of official bilingualism, perhaps because it sheds a poor light on Quebec's own unilingual language laws. Fair enough. But the inherent absurdity of a guy suing for a half-mil because he can't order a 7-Up in French seems lost on you - not to mention the irony of those from Quebec complaining about not being able to rely
perfectly on bilingualism in the federal sphere or outside of their province, when Quebec's own laws quite deliberate *prohibit* equal bilingualism *within* Quebec itself.
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2011, 02:35:01 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2011, 02:27:33 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 23, 2011, 02:15:08 PM
Anyway, the point was not about Air Canada, but rather the reaction of many english canadians, even editorials and op-eds, about the whole situation rather than Air Canada non respect of their policies. If CC were to board an airplane with first class ticket and they just told him "sorry, we overbooked, you'll have to seat in economy", I'm sure he wouldn't settle for a smile and an handshake, especially if it keeps happening over&over.
If they had a statutory duty to provide me with a first class ticket on all my flights I would do what Malthus suggested and bring an application for Mandamus requiring them to do so. Alternatively, if it happened often enough and they did not compensate me for my loss I would bring a claim for damages suffered - which in my case could be substantial. It would be cruel and unusual punishment to require a person of my size to sit in an economy seat.
I'll bet real money that you have never filed an application for Mandamus in your life. :contract:
Too bad you didn't bet me. :D
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2011, 02:35:01 PM
I'll bet real money that you have never filed an application for Mandamus in your life. :contract:
You dont know much about the kind of law I practice then. :contract:
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2011, 02:38:04 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2011, 02:35:01 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2011, 02:27:33 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 23, 2011, 02:15:08 PM
Anyway, the point was not about Air Canada, but rather the reaction of many english canadians, even editorials and op-eds, about the whole situation rather than Air Canada non respect of their policies. If CC were to board an airplane with first class ticket and they just told him "sorry, we overbooked, you'll have to seat in economy", I'm sure he wouldn't settle for a smile and an handshake, especially if it keeps happening over&over.
If they had a statutory duty to provide me with a first class ticket on all my flights I would do what Malthus suggested and bring an application for Mandamus requiring them to do so. Alternatively, if it happened often enough and they did not compensate me for my loss I would bring a claim for damages suffered - which in my case could be substantial. It would be cruel and unusual punishment to require a person of my size to sit in an economy seat.
I'll bet real money that you have never filed an application for Mandamus in your life. :contract:
Too bad you didn't bet me. :D
Well I won't now. :bowler:
I have often thought that defence lawyers ought to bring
habeus corpus applications once in a while when the system has missed some important deadlines - but I've never seen one. :(
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2011, 02:40:18 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2011, 02:35:01 PM
I'll bet real money that you have never filed an application for Mandamus in your life. :contract:
You dont know much about the kind of law I practice then. :contract:
Answer the question. :contract:
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2011, 02:41:52 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2011, 02:40:18 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2011, 02:35:01 PM
I'll bet real money that you have never filed an application for Mandamus in your life. :contract:
You dont know much about the kind of law I practice then. :contract:
Answer the question. :contract:
Better still, how much do you wish to wager?
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2011, 02:29:23 PM
Also, when I was bumped from a recent Air Canada flight, I got $200, not $20000.
Should have complained in french
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2011, 02:42:19 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2011, 02:41:52 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2011, 02:40:18 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2011, 02:35:01 PM
I'll bet real money that you have never filed an application for Mandamus in your life. :contract:
You dont know much about the kind of law I practice then. :contract:
Answer the question. :contract:
Better still, how much do you wish to wager?
A beer the next time I'm in Vancouver. :cheers:
Hands up, who has made a Mareva injunction? :D
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2011, 02:44:50 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2011, 02:42:19 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2011, 02:41:52 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2011, 02:40:18 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2011, 02:35:01 PM
I'll bet real money that you have never filed an application for Mandamus in your life. :contract:
You dont know much about the kind of law I practice then. :contract:
Answer the question. :contract:
Better still, how much do you wish to wager?
A beer the next time I'm in Vancouver. :cheers:
Ok, but make it an ale.
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2011, 02:45:20 PM
Hands up, who has made a Mareva injunction? :D
Drafting one as we speak....
Never had the chance to bring one yet though.
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2011, 02:37:08 PM
Seems to me that, for reasons of your own, you dislike the notion of official bilingualism
Well official bilingualism when haphazardly applied has to be annoying. It'd be hard to know as a french speaker if you'd be able to get decent service in your language.
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2011, 02:46:35 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2011, 02:37:08 PM
Seems to me that, for reasons of your own, you dislike the notion of official bilingualism
Well official bilingualism when haphazardly applied has to be annoying. It'd be hard to know as a french speaker if you'd be able to get decent service in your language.
This is an improvement over not getting any service in your language ... ?
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2011, 02:45:20 PM
Hands up, who has made a Mareva injunction? :D
Did you make it in 12 parsecs?
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2011, 02:46:12 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2011, 02:45:20 PM
Hands up, who has made a Mareva injunction? :D
Drafting one as we speak....
Never had the chance to bring one yet though.
Insider tip: beware the requirement to make 'warts and all' disclosure of the case against you at first instance. Very dangerous if the court thinks you didn't do it openly enough ... the Mareva could be discharged at the inter parties hearing & you get called on your undertaking in damages even if it is proved that the other side is in fact a pack of fraudulent scumbags (as is so often the case ...)
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2011, 02:48:10 PM
This is an improvement over not getting any service in your language ... ?
I could see how it might be. All about the expectations. :D
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2011, 02:45:47 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2011, 02:44:50 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2011, 02:42:19 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2011, 02:41:52 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2011, 02:40:18 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2011, 02:35:01 PM
I'll bet real money that you have never filed an application for Mandamus in your life. :contract:
You dont know much about the kind of law I practice then. :contract:
Answer the question. :contract:
Better still, how much do you wish to wager?
A beer the next time I'm in Vancouver. :cheers:
Ok, but make it an ale.
Deal.
So?
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2011, 02:52:29 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2011, 02:46:12 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2011, 02:45:20 PM
Hands up, who has made a Mareva injunction? :D
Drafting one as we speak....
Never had the chance to bring one yet though.
Insider tip: beware the requirement to make 'warts and all' disclosure of the case against you at first instance. Very dangerous if the court thinks you didn't do it openly enough ... the Mareva could be discharged at the inter parties hearing & you get called on your undertaking in damages even if it is proved that the other side is in fact a pack of fraudulent scumbags (as is so often the case ...)
My civil experience is pretty limited so I certainly never filed for a prerogative writ, but the 'full and frank' disclosure is also a requirement on an Information to Obtain for a search warrant, and is once of the most common forms of attacking a warrant.
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2011, 02:52:29 PM
Insider tip: beware the requirement to make 'warts and all' disclosure of the case against you at first instance. Very dangerous if the court thinks you didn't do it openly enough ... the Mareva could be discharged at the inter parties hearing & you get called on your undertaking in damages even if it is proved that the other side is in fact a pack of fraudulent scumbags (as is so often the case ...)
Yeah, I have brought plenty of Ex Parte applications so the warts and all is nothing new. The tricky part I am finding is being able to satisfactorily identify where the information is located (ie the location of the drives where the info is stored). The challenges of the digital age.
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2011, 02:52:52 PM
So?
You owe me an Ale.
Granted I normally defend against a Petition seeking an Order of Mandamus given the nature of my practice but I have brought such Petitions as well. I think Malthus would be more on the issuing side.
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2011, 02:55:19 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2011, 02:52:29 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2011, 02:46:12 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2011, 02:45:20 PM
Hands up, who has made a Mareva injunction? :D
Drafting one as we speak....
Never had the chance to bring one yet though.
Insider tip: beware the requirement to make 'warts and all' disclosure of the case against you at first instance. Very dangerous if the court thinks you didn't do it openly enough ... the Mareva could be discharged at the inter parties hearing & you get called on your undertaking in damages even if it is proved that the other side is in fact a pack of fraudulent scumbags (as is so often the case ...)
My civil experience is pretty limited so I certainly never filed for a prerogative writ, but the 'full and frank' disclosure is also a requirement on an Information to Obtain for a search warrant, and is once of the most common forms of attacking a warrant.
Difference with a Mareva is the financial stakes. A Mareva freezes the other guy's assets based on an ex parte application. You have to give an undertaking in damages to the court that you agree to pay *all* the other guy's damages resulting from that freezing, if the Mareva was improperly obtained. Being an undertaking to the court, failure to pay is contempt. If you don't present the weaknesses of your case, the Mareva is improperly obtained ...
The criminal law equivalent would be if a cop, seeking a warrant, had to promise that the guy being searched gets to rummage through the cop's own apartment and take whatever he fancied if the warrant was improperly obtained. :D
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2011, 02:57:04 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2011, 02:52:29 PM
Insider tip: beware the requirement to make 'warts and all' disclosure of the case against you at first instance. Very dangerous if the court thinks you didn't do it openly enough ... the Mareva could be discharged at the inter parties hearing & you get called on your undertaking in damages even if it is proved that the other side is in fact a pack of fraudulent scumbags (as is so often the case ...)
Yeah, I have brought plenty of Ex Parte applications so the warts and all is nothing new. The tricky part I am finding is being able to satisfactorily identify where the information is located (ie the location of the drives where the info is stored). The challenges of the digital age.
Sure you aren't thinking of an anton piller order?
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2011, 03:00:51 PM
Difference with a Mareva is the financial stakes. A Mareva freezes the other guy's assets based on an ex parte application. You have to give an undertaking in damages to the court that you agree to pay *all* the other guy's damages resulting from that freezing, if the Mareva was improperly obtained. Being an undertaking to the court, failure to pay is contempt. If you don't present the weaknesses of your case, the Mareva is improperly obtained ...
The criminal law equivalent would be if a cop, seeking a warrant, had to promise that the guy being searched gets to rummage through the cop's own apartment and take whatever he fancied if the warrant was improperly obtained. :D
Exactly. Its is the same distinction with an Ex Parte injunction application (very similiar to a Mareva but the Mareva generally will have wider implications).
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2011, 03:02:37 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2011, 02:57:04 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2011, 02:52:29 PM
Insider tip: beware the requirement to make 'warts and all' disclosure of the case against you at first instance. Very dangerous if the court thinks you didn't do it openly enough ... the Mareva could be discharged at the inter parties hearing & you get called on your undertaking in damages even if it is proved that the other side is in fact a pack of fraudulent scumbags (as is so often the case ...)
Yeah, I have brought plenty of Ex Parte applications so the warts and all is nothing new. The tricky part I am finding is being able to satisfactorily identify where the information is located (ie the location of the drives where the info is stored). The challenges of the digital age.
Sure you aren't thinking of an anton piller order?
Yes, as part of the application.
There is a fair risk that both the assets and evidence will disappear.
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2011, 03:00:51 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2011, 02:55:19 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2011, 02:52:29 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2011, 02:46:12 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2011, 02:45:20 PM
Hands up, who has made a Mareva injunction? :D
Drafting one as we speak....
Never had the chance to bring one yet though.
Insider tip: beware the requirement to make 'warts and all' disclosure of the case against you at first instance. Very dangerous if the court thinks you didn't do it openly enough ... the Mareva could be discharged at the inter parties hearing & you get called on your undertaking in damages even if it is proved that the other side is in fact a pack of fraudulent scumbags (as is so often the case ...)
My civil experience is pretty limited so I certainly never filed for a prerogative writ, but the 'full and frank' disclosure is also a requirement on an Information to Obtain for a search warrant, and is once of the most common forms of attacking a warrant.
Difference with a Mareva is the financial stakes. A Mareva freezes the other guy's assets based on an ex parte application. You have to give an undertaking in damages to the court that you agree to pay *all* the other guy's damages resulting from that freezing, if the Mareva was improperly obtained. Being an undertaking to the court, failure to pay is contempt. If you don't present the weaknesses of your case, the Mareva is improperly obtained ...
The criminal law equivalent would be if a cop, seeking a warrant, had to promise that the guy being searched gets to rummage through the cop's own apartment and take whatever he fancied if the warrant was improperly obtained. :D
There's a whole body of caselaw on what happens if your ITO doesn't disclose all relevant informatin, but the end result can be that your entire case is thrown out...
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2011, 03:03:20 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2011, 03:02:37 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2011, 02:57:04 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2011, 02:52:29 PM
Insider tip: beware the requirement to make 'warts and all' disclosure of the case against you at first instance. Very dangerous if the court thinks you didn't do it openly enough ... the Mareva could be discharged at the inter parties hearing & you get called on your undertaking in damages even if it is proved that the other side is in fact a pack of fraudulent scumbags (as is so often the case ...)
Yeah, I have brought plenty of Ex Parte applications so the warts and all is nothing new. The tricky part I am finding is being able to satisfactorily identify where the information is located (ie the location of the drives where the info is stored). The challenges of the digital age.
Sure you aren't thinking of an anton piller order?
Yes, as part of the application.
There is a fair risk that both the assets and evidence will disappear.
Oh, the joys of acting against fraudulent scumbags. You get to explore areas of the law rarely visited by ordinary mortals. :D
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2011, 03:05:17 PM
There's a whole body of caselaw on what happens if your ITO doesn't disclose all relevant informatin, but the end result can be that your entire case is thrown out...
But that is the full extent of your problem. With a Mareva or any other Ex Parte application which interferes with a going concern there can be significant damages awarded.
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2011, 03:05:51 PM
Oh, the joys of acting against fraudulent scumbags. You get to explore areas of the law rarely visited by ordinary mortals. :D
:D
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2011, 03:05:17 PM
There's a whole body of caselaw on what happens if your ITO doesn't disclose all relevant informatin, but the end result can be that your entire case is thrown out...
That's pretty bad ... but it is even worse when the fraudsters legally collect big bucks from your perfectly innocent victim-of-fraud client for interfence with their fraud business because you screwed up the injunction application. :lol:
Quote from: Ideologue on August 23, 2011, 02:20:35 PM
How can you fail to order a 7Up in French anyway? I mean, I don't speak French, but unless you were improperly translating the product name (JE VEUX UNE SEPT JUSQU'A) I don't even see the confusion.
:lol: Sounds great. I'll try this one.
Wow you lawyers can make any thread boring.
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2011, 03:12:35 PM
Wow you lawyers can make any thread boring.
Go find your own thread.
you took it over :( . can you get injunction from someone posting topic in a thread? :P
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2011, 03:12:35 PM
Wow you lawyers can make any thread boring.
Hey, I could write a novel about some of my old war stories - and sometimes I think I should.
After all, I've had clients sued by Martians, and others by Jesus Christ, the Son of Man. The former was a nutcase (or perhaps a Martian), but the latter was a quite serious matter about real money ...
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2011, 03:18:47 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2011, 03:12:35 PM
Wow you lawyers can make any thread boring.
Hey, I could write a novel about some of my old war stories - and sometimes I think I should.
After all, I've had clients sued by Martians, and others by Jesus Christ, the Son of Man. The former was a nutcase (or perhaps a Martian), but the latter was a quite serious matter about real money ...
how does it even get to that point? can you serve someone papers without going through court first?
*edit* not actual court proceedings, but through a judge or something.
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2011, 03:18:47 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2011, 03:12:35 PM
Wow you lawyers can make any thread boring.
Hey, I could write a novel about some of my old war stories - and sometimes I think I should.
After all, I've had clients sued by Martians, and others by Jesus Christ, the Son of Man. The former was a nutcase (or perhaps a Martian), but the latter was a quite serious matter about real money ...
I had a client sued for conducting brain washing experiments on the plaintiff, implanting him with electrodes to monitor him and then sending him telepathic messages through the said electrodes. My favourite part was his claim for damages was a Red Lambrogini, a Yellow Range Rover and $2,000,000,000,000.
I proposed to my client that I defend for 1% of the claim and just one of the vehicles. I even said I would not be particular about the colour. But that was not acceptable to them and I had to resort to my usual hourly billing.
Quote from: HVC on August 23, 2011, 03:21:22 PM
how does it even get to that point? can you serve someone papers without going through court first?
*edit* not actual court proceedings, but through a judge or something.
Nope, I go and get the Action struck for having no prospect for success.
Actions are not vetted by the Court before hand.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2011, 03:26:28 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 23, 2011, 03:21:22 PM
how does it even get to that point? can you serve someone papers without going through court first?
*edit* not actual court proceedings, but through a judge or something.
Nope, I go and get the Action struck for having no prospect for success.
Actions are not vetted by the Court before hand.
So a crazy person can keep pestering me and making me pay legal fees? can you file a restraining order of sorts to keep from being harrassed by these wacky suits?
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2011, 03:18:47 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2011, 03:12:35 PM
Wow you lawyers can make any thread boring.
Hey, I could write a novel about some of my old war stories - and sometimes I think I should.
After all, I've had clients sued by Martians, and others by Jesus Christ, the Son of Man. The former was a nutcase (or perhaps a Martian), but the latter was a quite serious matter about real money ...
I prosecuted his father once. :lol:
Quote from: HVC on August 23, 2011, 03:31:39 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2011, 03:26:28 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 23, 2011, 03:21:22 PM
how does it even get to that point? can you serve someone papers without going through court first?
*edit* not actual court proceedings, but through a judge or something.
Nope, I go and get the Action struck for having no prospect for success.
Actions are not vetted by the Court before hand.
So a crazy person can keep pestering me and making me pay legal fees? can you file a restraining order of sorts to keep from being harrassed by these wacky suits?
Yes. You can have someone declared a "vexatious litigant" and prohibited from filing further court applications.
These kind of nuisance lawsuits are common enough though (as are lawsuite for patently ridiculous amount of money) that they're not really that interesting to tell stories about. As you can tell that all three of us have dealt with them.
Quote from: HVC on August 23, 2011, 03:31:39 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2011, 03:26:28 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 23, 2011, 03:21:22 PM
how does it even get to that point? can you serve someone papers without going through court first?
*edit* not actual court proceedings, but through a judge or something.
Nope, I go and get the Action struck for having no prospect for success.
Actions are not vetted by the Court before hand.
So a crazy person can keep pestering me and making me pay legal fees? can you file a restraining order of sorts to keep from being harrassed by these wacky suits?
You can have a crazy person declared a vexatious litigant (then their court filings have to be pre-approved).
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2011, 03:36:30 PM
I prosecuted his father once. :lol:
Was King Solomon the defense attorney?
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2011, 03:18:47 PM
After all, I've had clients sued by Martians...
I seem to recall that story. Didn't the judge dismiss on the grounds that, if the plaintiff were correct, he had no grounds, as a Martian, to sue in that court?
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2011, 03:40:14 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2011, 03:36:30 PM
I prosecuted his father once. :lol:
Was King Solomon the defense attorney?
I felt for his defence lawyer actually. Poor guy felt he was being persecuted by 'Americans', but because he knew the role of the judge, and because he actually felt safer *in* jail than outside, the judge ruled he was sane enough to stand trial. Despite believing that he was the father of God.
The good news is that he responded very well to treatment and medication and has not re-offended as of the last I heard. :)
Quote from: HVC on August 23, 2011, 03:31:39 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2011, 03:26:28 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 23, 2011, 03:21:22 PM
how does it even get to that point? can you serve someone papers without going through court first?
*edit* not actual court proceedings, but through a judge or something.
Nope, I go and get the Action struck for having no prospect for success.
Actions are not vetted by the Court before hand.
So a crazy person can keep pestering me and making me pay legal fees? can you file a restraining order of sorts to keep from being harrassed by these wacky suits?
Malthus is correct but it takes a fair bit to get someone declared a vexatious litigant. In the meantime yes the Defendant to go through the process of striking the claim. The court will award costs but normally that is a blood from stone situation.
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2011, 03:39:02 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 23, 2011, 03:31:39 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2011, 03:26:28 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 23, 2011, 03:21:22 PM
how does it even get to that point? can you serve someone papers without going through court first?
*edit* not actual court proceedings, but through a judge or something.
Nope, I go and get the Action struck for having no prospect for success.
Actions are not vetted by the Court before hand.
So a crazy person can keep pestering me and making me pay legal fees? can you file a restraining order of sorts to keep from being harrassed by these wacky suits?
Yes. You can have someone declared a "vexatious litigant" and prohibited from filing further court applications.
These kind of nuisance lawsuits are common enough though (as are lawsuite for patently ridiculous amount of money) that they're not really that interesting to tell stories about. As you can tell that all three of us have dealt with them.
The Jesus Christ guy wasn't crazy - that's the part that made him interesting.
He also had a legitimate case, sort of.
Situation was this: he was a religious fraudster, who created a ponzi scheme called the "double your blessings ministry". Way it worked was people in his church would give him money and he promised that, through the power of Jesus, he would double it. All of this was run out of his church, which was incorporated.
In fact, he gave the money to our client to invest, a shady investment dealer in Canada (he was from the US). The amounts at stake were large - millions of dollars.
In the end, the feds closed in on the "reverend" and tossed him in the pokey. Casting about for a way to insulate himself, he put all his assets into a religious trust with himself as trustee and the beneficiary being "Jesus Christ, the Son of Man". He dissolved the original corporation.
Well, once our shady client heard about this, he cut the Reverend off from the money (intending to pocket it himself).
Turns out that he could: the Reverend was screwed by that rarest of legal beasts, a true conflict of laws. In Ontario, only legal persons (humans and existing corporations) can sue – and a corporation can be revived any time to commence or continue a lawsuit. In the Reverend's state of incorporation, a dissolved corporation can sue, but once dissolved can never be revived. Having dissolved his corporation and transferred its assets, he was fucked.
It was then that he attempted to sue in the name of the trust, meaning in the name of the beneficiary – in this case, Jesus Christ, the Son of Man. Didn't work.
That's only a skeleton outline of a most entertaining case that involved a cast of creeps – fun fact: we sought security for costs so that we could put before the court the Reverend's previous convictions (for, among other things, attempting to import from the third world on an industrial scale videotapes depicting "various acts of beastiality"); another fun fact—the lawyer for the Reverend attempted to seduce our client's secretary with the come-on line "in the City, they call me Mark the Shark".
So what is it the Francophones really want? I'm getting the feeling there is something unsaid here. The fact that some our resident Francophones angrily demand that French be on equal footing to English in the rest of Canada, but don't seem to mind that France must predominate in Quebec strikes me as a bit odd.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 23, 2011, 03:59:04 PM
So what is it the Francophones really want? I'm getting the feeling there is something unsaid here. The fact that some our resident Francophones angrily demand that French be on equal footing to English in the rest of Canada, but don't seem to mind that France must predominate in Quebec strikes me as a bit odd.
Now that is a very good question. Especially given the view of Grallon and Viper that the legislation given access to French should be repealed.
Quote from: grumbler on August 23, 2011, 03:47:39 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2011, 03:18:47 PM
After all, I've had clients sued by Martians...
I seem to recall that story. Didn't the judge dismiss on the grounds that, if the plaintiff were correct, he had no grounds, as a Martian, to sue in that court?
Yup, that's the one - Martians aren't "persons" who could sue (the backgroud is that at the time it was very difficult to dismiss a case in Ontario in a summary manner for a factual reason - it has since grown easier. Hence the somewhat smartass ruling :D ).
Quote from: Razgovory on August 23, 2011, 03:59:04 PM
but don't seem to mind that France must predominate in Quebec strikes me as a bit odd.
France has not predominated in Quebec for far too long a time :(
France does predominate in Saint Pierre and Miquelon though.
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2011, 04:06:28 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 23, 2011, 03:59:04 PM
but don't seem to mind that France must predominate in Quebec strikes me as a bit odd.
France has not predominated in Quebec for far too long a time :(
France does predominate in Saint Pierre and Miquelon though.
I meant French, not France. Or if you prefer Francese.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2011, 04:01:29 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 23, 2011, 03:59:04 PM
So what is it the Francophones really want? I'm getting the feeling there is something unsaid here. The fact that some our resident Francophones angrily demand that French be on equal footing to English in the rest of Canada, but don't seem to mind that France must predominate in Quebec strikes me as a bit odd.
Now that is a very good question. Especially given the view of Grallon and Viper that the legislation given access to French should be repealed.
I am not sure I see the issue. The Language laws differ in different provinces yes?
Are the laws in Quebec not consistent with the federal laws? Are they given some sort of special status to advance Frenchiness?
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2011, 04:09:45 PM
I am not sure I see the issue. The Language laws differ in different provinces yes?
Are the laws in Quebec not consistent with the federal laws? Are they given some sort of special status to advance Frenchiness?
There are no language laws in other provinces. Quebec laws are most certainly not consistent with Federal law. They prefer French over English. That is the whole point.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2011, 04:11:45 PM
Quebec laws are most certainly not consistent with Federal law.
So...how can they get away with that?
By bitching they'll separate
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2011, 03:18:47 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2011, 03:12:35 PM
Wow you lawyers can make any thread boring.
Hey, I could write a novel about some of my old war stories - and sometimes I think I should.
After all, I've had clients sued by Martians, and others by Jesus Christ, the Son of Man. The former was a nutcase (or perhaps a Martian), but the latter was a quite serious matter about real money ...
Didn't you watch a stupid man plummet to his death?
Anyway, the Martian ruling is fucked up. Canada's racist.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 23, 2011, 04:17:47 PM
Didn't you watch a stupid man plummet to his death?
Anyway, the Martian ruling is fucked up. Canada's racist.
I didn't actually see that. I knew of it, of course.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2011, 04:11:45 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2011, 04:09:45 PM
I am not sure I see the issue. The Language laws differ in different provinces yes?
Are the laws in Quebec not consistent with the federal laws? Are they given some sort of special status to advance Frenchiness?
There are no language laws in other provinces. Quebec laws are most certainly not consistent with Federal law. They prefer French over English. That is the whole point.
:blink:
http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/laws/stat/rsa-2000-c-l-6/latest/rsa-2000-c-l-6.html
for starters...
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2011, 04:11:45 PM
... They prefer French over English. That is the whole point.
As any culturally and sociologically coherent people composed of a large majority of French speaker would. You are indeed correct to state that that's the whole point. As aggravating as this is for our Anglo neighbors.
G.
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2011, 04:30:29 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2011, 04:11:45 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2011, 04:09:45 PM
I am not sure I see the issue. The Language laws differ in different provinces yes?
Are the laws in Quebec not consistent with the federal laws? Are they given some sort of special status to advance Frenchiness?
There are no language laws in other provinces. Quebec laws are most certainly not consistent with Federal law. They prefer French over English. That is the whole point.
:blink:
http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/laws/stat/rsa-2000-c-l-6/latest/rsa-2000-c-l-6.html
for starters...
Yes, there is language legislation in other provinces - generally intended to preserve and protect the language rights of the French-speaking minority.
Example, Ontario:
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-f32/latest/rso-1990-c-f32.html
The language laws in Quebec serve the opposite function: to enhance the language rights of the french-speaking majority at the expense of the minority.
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2011, 04:36:33 PM
...
The language laws in Quebec serve the opposite function: to enhance the language rights of the french-speaking majority at the expense of the minority.
I am not moved to tears over our minority's fate. If they're not satisfied - Canada is that way. And considering the rate of assimilation of those French minorities outside of Quebec - we'll keep the languages laws firmly in place here.
G.
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2011, 04:09:45 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2011, 04:01:29 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 23, 2011, 03:59:04 PM
So what is it the Francophones really want? I'm getting the feeling there is something unsaid here. The fact that some our resident Francophones angrily demand that French be on equal footing to English in the rest of Canada, but don't seem to mind that France must predominate in Quebec strikes me as a bit odd.
Now that is a very good question. Especially given the view of Grallon and Viper that the legislation given access to French should be repealed.
I am not sure I see the issue. The Language laws differ in different provinces yes?
Are the laws in Quebec not consistent with the federal laws? Are they given some sort of special status to advance Frenchiness?
Well the entire point of federalism is that provincial laws don't have to be consistent with federal laws - each level of government has their own areas of jurisdiction.
Quebec has passed laws making French the official language of Quebec, and even went so far as to put restrictions on the use of English. At one point those laws were found to violate the right of freedom of expression. However, Quebec used what is called the "notwithstanding" clause to pass their language laws 'notwithstanding' the Charter of Rights.
However, those laws were further amended back in the 90s, they no longer violate the Charter, and Quebec no longer has to invoke the notwithstanding clause.
Now there are certain language rights enshrined in the Constitution - they mostly deal with minority language education and access to government services.
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2011, 04:30:29 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2011, 04:11:45 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2011, 04:09:45 PM
I am not sure I see the issue. The Language laws differ in different provinces yes?
Are the laws in Quebec not consistent with the federal laws? Are they given some sort of special status to advance Frenchiness?
There are no language laws in other provinces. Quebec laws are most certainly not consistent with Federal law. They prefer French over English. That is the whole point.
:blink:
http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/laws/stat/rsa-2000-c-l-6/latest/rsa-2000-c-l-6.html
for starters...
You are a bit slow on the uptake there BB, what part of that legislation says English must be preferred to French. I am curious as to why Alberta felt the need to say that their statutes were valid if only printed in English. Do you know why. Also does any other Province do this?
Quote from: Grallon on August 23, 2011, 04:33:42 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2011, 04:11:45 PM
... They prefer French over English. That is the whole point.
As any culturally and sociologically coherent people composed of a large majority of French speaker would. You are indeed correct to state that that's the whole point. As aggravating as this is for our Anglo neighbors.
G.
Thanks for the confirmation Grallon.
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2011, 04:44:18 PM
However, those laws were further amended back in the 90s, they no longer violate the Charter, and Quebec no longer has to invoke the notwithstanding clause.
Is there a case on that or is that the common wisdom on the topic?
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2011, 04:47:26 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2011, 04:44:18 PM
However, those laws were further amended back in the 90s, they no longer violate the Charter, and Quebec no longer has to invoke the notwithstanding clause.
Is there a case on that or is that the common wisdom on the topic?
I checked wikipedia, but that merely confirmed what my own memory said.
Supposedly, Quebec amended the Act to adopt language "suggested" by the SCC.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2011, 04:44:55 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2011, 04:30:29 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2011, 04:11:45 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2011, 04:09:45 PM
I am not sure I see the issue. The Language laws differ in different provinces yes?
Are the laws in Quebec not consistent with the federal laws? Are they given some sort of special status to advance Frenchiness?
There are no language laws in other provinces. Quebec laws are most certainly not consistent with Federal law. They prefer French over English. That is the whole point.
:blink:
http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/laws/stat/rsa-2000-c-l-6/latest/rsa-2000-c-l-6.html
for starters...
You are a bit slow on the uptake there BB, what part of that legislation says English must be preferred to French. I am curious as to why Alberta felt the need to say that their statutes were valid if only printed in English. Do you know why. Also does any other Province do this?
Wait... I catch you in a mistake (but one easy enough to make), and yo go on the attack calling me "slow on the uptake"?
You said:
QuoteThere are no language laws in other provinces.
Which is patently incorrect. Many if not most provinces have a Languages Act or an Official Languages Act. And if I were grumbler, I'd probably brow-beat you with your mistake for the next several pages. But thankfully I'm not grumbler.
As to why Alberta would specify that English only laws are acceptable... are you not familiar with the Manitoba Languages Reference from the late 70s, early 80s? Under the
Manitoba Act all laws were to be in both English and French, but some time in the late 19th century they stopped doing that, and passed English-only laws.
The SCC
struck down every law ever passed in the province from that point on because they were only in English. They did give Manitoba one year's grace however, so after spending a fortune on translation, Manitoba did re-pass all of its laws.
Now I think the
Alberta Act contains different language rights than the
Manitoba Act, but I guess to be safe they put that wording in the Alberta
Language Act.
Quote from: Grallon on August 23, 2011, 04:43:17 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2011, 04:36:33 PM
...
The language laws in Quebec serve the opposite function: to enhance the language rights of the french-speaking majority at the expense of the minority.
I am not moved to tears over our minority's fate. If they're not satisfied - Canada is that way. And considering the rate of assimilation of those French minorities outside of Quebec - we'll keep the languages laws firmly in place here.
G.
Yeah, well, not being moved to tears by violations of the rights of minorities is not exactly an unknown position for you. :D
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2011, 04:55:16 PM
Wait... I catch you in a mistake (but one easy enough to make), and yo go on the attack calling me "slow on the uptake"?
This is you being too literal again and missing the subtext. The context of the answer was that no other Provinces have language laws like Quebec. English is not preferred to French in any province in the same way as French is preferred to English in Quebec. That is why I said you were slow on the uptake.
And the Quebec law is not consistent with Federal law which requires equal access to both languages within reason. IE in the Federal Legislation one language is not preferred over the other.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2011, 05:06:44 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2011, 04:55:16 PM
Wait... I catch you in a mistake (but one easy enough to make), and yo go on the attack calling me "slow on the uptake"?
This is you being too literal again and missing the subtext. The context of the answer was that no other Provinces have language laws like Quebec. English is not preferred to French in any province in the same way as French is preferred to English in Quebec. That is why I said you were slow on the uptake.
And the Quebec law is not consistent with Federal law which requires equal access to both languages within reason. IE in the Federal Legislation one language is not preferred over the other.
So I should have gone by what you meant to say, and not what you actually said. Right...
Quebec law does not need to be consistent with Federal law. That's basic division of powers. :huh: The Feds only mandate language rights for things under federal jurisdiction (like airlines).
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2011, 05:06:44 PMEnglish is not preferred to French in any province in the same way as French is preferred to English in Quebec. That is why I said you were slow on the uptake.
Not anymore: most provincial language policies outside Quebec were enacted in the 19th century, targetting schools and services (Manitoba, NW Territories, Ontario). Now that the job of ensuring a self-replicating majority of English speakers is done, provinces can feel free to enact all sorts of token encouragement policies for French-as-a-second-language, something qualitatively different than ensuring one can live one's life in French-as-a-first-language. The main exception being New Brunswick - and not out of benevolence. The struggle there was fierce. It leaves scars. Something you all seem to be forgetting: laws and policies do not form out of a vacuum.
Ugh. I feel we have had the same conversations ten times already.
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2011, 04:23:27 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 23, 2011, 04:17:47 PM
Didn't you watch a stupid man plummet to his death?
Anyway, the Martian ruling is fucked up. Canada's racist.
I didn't actually see that. I knew of it, of course.
You should pretend you were actually there. :P
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2011, 04:36:33 PM
The language laws in Quebec serve the opposite function: to enhance the language rights of the french-speaking majority at the expense of the minority.
:rolleyes: Not again.
I have, time and again, asked you to explain how the language laws in Quebec violate "the minority's rights".
"The minority" school rights are protected. "The minority" whose rights are infringed, in this case, is the right of everyone who does not qualify for English schooling. Just like, in many jurisdiction, people who do not qualify for residency in one school board do not get to pick which school they send their kids to. Again, you might, like the Tea Partiers, deem this to be an intolerable infringement upon your personal freedom. You still have private schools, if you so desire.
The other "rights" infringed upon are the rights to chose the size of fonts, the right to omit a French version of the exact same advertizing. In this case, "the minority" are corporations or business owners. Having such requirements might be bad business policy, as you take pleasure in reminding us all the time, but I would be hard pressed to call that "oppression".
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 23, 2011, 05:22:23 PM
Not anymore: most provincial language policies outside Quebec were enacted in the 19th century, targetting schools and services (Manitoba, NW Territories, Ontario). Now that the job of ensuring a self-replicating majority of English speakers is done, provinces can feel free to enact all sorts of token encouragement policies for French-as-a-second-language, something qualitatively different than ensuring one can live one's life in French-as-a-first-language. The main exception being New Brunswick - and not out of benevolence. The struggle there was fierce. It leaves scars. Something you all seem to be forgetting: laws and policies do not form out of a vacuum.
Ugh. I feel we have had the same conversations ten times already.
You are assuming a consitency among provincial legislators that does not exist. Which is more likely: a centuries-long government conspiracy to suppress French and hide itself with self-serving hypocracy of tokenism; or that attitudes towards things like minority rights have simply changed in the western world and in Canada, leading governments to abandon the old Anglo-superiority you seem to assume motivates them?
Your story requires people in the ROC to care about language as much as you do - while mysteriously ceasing to care about stuff like "white only" and "no Jews allowed" (things they cared about until the 1950s in places like Ontario). What relevance do these old struggles to preserve Anglo-ism have, when something like half of Toronto's population are immigrants?
It isn't credible.
I have Anglo superiority.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 23, 2011, 05:33:35 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2011, 04:36:33 PM
The language laws in Quebec serve the opposite function: to enhance the language rights of the french-speaking majority at the expense of the minority.
:rolleyes: Not again.
I have, time and again, asked you to explain how the language laws in Quebec violate "the minority's rights".
"The minority" school rights are protected. "The minority" whose rights are infringed, in this case, is the right of everyone who does not qualify for English schooling. Just like, in many jurisdiction, people who do not qualify for residency in one school board do not get to pick which school they send their kids to. Again, you might, like the Tea Partiers, deem this to be an intolerable infringement upon your personal freedom. You still have private schools, if you so desire.
The other "rights" infringed upon are the rights to chose the size of fonts, the right to omit a French version of the exact same advertizing. In this case, "the minority" are corporations or business owners. Having such requirements might be bad business policy, as you take pleasure in reminding us all the time, but I would be hard pressed to call that "oppression".
It obviously and on its face violates the minorities' rights to legally force them to use the majorities' language "markedly more predominantly" than their own on their business's signs - it is
intended as a symbolic act of superiority by the majority over the minority. That's expressly what it is for. See section 58 of the Charter of the French Language.
A similar act directed against the francophone minority in the ROC would have Quebecers up in arms over oppression - and rightly.
Roll your eyes all you want - you know it is true.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 23, 2011, 05:33:35 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2011, 04:36:33 PM
The language laws in Quebec serve the opposite function: to enhance the language rights of the french-speaking majority at the expense of the minority.
:rolleyes: Not again.
I have, time and again, asked you to explain how the language laws in Quebec violate "the minority's rights".
"The minority" school rights are protected. "The minority" whose rights are infringed, in this case, is the right of everyone who does not qualify for English schooling. Just like, in many jurisdiction, people who do not qualify for residency in one school board do not get to pick which school they send their kids to. Again, you might, like the Tea Partiers, deem this to be an intolerable infringement upon your personal freedom. You still have private schools, if you so desire.
The other "rights" infringed upon are the rights to chose the size of fonts, the right to omit a French version of the exact same advertizing. In this case, "the minority" are corporations or business owners. Having such requirements might be bad business policy, as you take pleasure in reminding us all the time, but I would be hard pressed to call that "oppression".
I'm fine with French language law as it stands. I think there are some issues surrounding English language education, but that's tinkering. :)
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2011, 05:34:21 PMYou are assuming a consitency among provincial legislators that does not exist. Which is more likely: a centuries-long government conspiracy to suppress French and hide itself with self-serving hypocracy of tokenism; or that attitudes towards things like minority rights have simply changed in the western world and in Canada, leading governments to abandon the old Anglo-superiority you seem to assume motivates them?
You read conspiracy where there was none. I know enough of history to avoid making such claims.
Of course attitudes have changed - for all sorts of reasons, sometimes having little to Quebec itself. My point is simply that when French was politically and culturally threatening, provincial legislature took steps to prevent its spread or replications. Now, attitudes are, of course, different. French is celebrated - or often reviled - for symbolic reasons, because there is little social or cultural cost. There will never be a second French speaking province, or bilingual province. English Canada is its own assimilating machine. Now, one can celebrate French, just like one can celebrate Cantoneese or Urdu, with a sprinkling more of "canadianness" on top, acknowledging the French past (rarely the present, never the future) of Canada. This is why I called it "token". Because when there is a political, or even economic cost, you see frictions arising, and symbolism gets thrown out of the window as "mere symbolism".
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2011, 05:14:39 PM
So I should have gone by what you meant to say, and not what you actually said. Right...
No I am quite happy for you to go by what I say within the context in which I say it.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 23, 2011, 05:47:14 PM
You read conspiracy where there was none. I know enough of history to avoid making such claims.
Of course attitudes have changed - for all sorts of reasons, sometimes having little to Quebec itself. My point is simply that when French was politically and culturally threatening, provincial legislature took steps to prevent its spread or replications. Now, attitudes are, of course, different. French is celebrated - or often reviled - for symbolic reasons, because there is little social or cultural cost. There will never be a second French speaking province, or bilingual province. English Canada is its own assimilating machine. Now, one can celebrate French, just like one can celebrate Cantoneese or Urdu, with a sprinkling more of "canadianness" on top, acknowledging the French past (rarely the present, never the future) of Canada. This is why I called it "token". Because when there is a political, or even economic cost, you see frictions arising, and symbolism gets thrown out of the window as "mere symbolism".
Intentionality is the natural reading of this:
QuoteNow that the job of ensuring a self-replicating majority of English speakers is done, provinces can feel free to enact all sorts of token encouragement policies for French-as-a-second-language, something qualitatively different than ensuring one can live one's life in French-as-a-first-language.
You are incorrect that there is no cost or risk to current multicultural policies. True, there will never be another French province. But the racial and ethnic composition of places like Toronto is changing very rapidly and this has very risky conseqences - embrasing this is actually quite bold. The Cantonese you describe as marginal isn't so small an issue if you live, say, in Vancouver. Or downtown Toronto.
No-one here cares much about the 19th century problems, because we are dealing with quite different 21st century problems.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 23, 2011, 05:47:14 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2011, 05:34:21 PMYou are assuming a consitency among provincial legislators that does not exist. Which is more likely: a centuries-long government conspiracy to suppress French and hide itself with self-serving hypocracy of tokenism; or that attitudes towards things like minority rights have simply changed in the western world and in Canada, leading governments to abandon the old Anglo-superiority you seem to assume motivates them?
You read conspiracy where there was none. I know enough of history to avoid making such claims.
Of course attitudes have changed - for all sorts of reasons, sometimes having little to Quebec itself. My point is simply that when French was politically and culturally threatening, provincial legislature took steps to prevent its spread or replications. Now, attitudes are, of course, different. French is celebrated - or often reviled - for symbolic reasons, because there is little social or cultural cost. There will never be a second French speaking province, or bilingual province. English Canada is its own assimilating machine. Now, one can celebrate French, just like one can celebrate Cantoneese or Urdu, with a sprinkling more of "canadianness" on top, acknowledging the French past (rarely the present, never the future) of Canada. This is why I called it "token". Because when there is a political, or even economic cost, you see frictions arising, and symbolism gets thrown out of the window as "mere symbolism".
Oex, now you're not being fair.
French language is treated very differently from Cantonese or Urdu. You can not get a Cantonese trial. Your children are not entitled to a Cantonese-language education. You do not get government services in Cantonese.
Certainly there will never be another French speaking province, but that has been true for over a hundred years. Immigration patterns in Western Canada always made it extremely unlikely that there would be a French speaking population.
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2011, 05:42:20 PMIt obviously and on its face violates the minorities' rights to legally force them to use the majorities' language "markedly more predominantly" than their own on their business's signs - it is intended as a symbolic act of superiority by the majority over the minority. That's expressly what it is for. See section 58 of the Charter of the French Language.
Ah. I didn't realize the right to commercially advertize in English (or Urdu)
only constituted such a crucial rampart against tyranny.
The symbolism of the Charter of the French Language was in making French visible - "normal and usual", in the language of the Charter - not qualitatively superior.
I think in the interests of fairness all Canadians should continue in French only in this thread.
Évidemment, cela me conviendrait parfaitement, d'autant que je suis bien plus éloquent dans ma langue maternelle (enfin, j'espère). Mais je crains que cela ne limite sévèrement la conversation.
Damn you Yi! *shakes fist*
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2011, 06:00:23 PM
Damn you Yi! *shakes fist*
Yi just wanted the thread to end.
Google translate gives this :
"Obviously this would suit me perfectly, especially since I am much more eloquent in my language (well, hopefully). But I fear this will severely limit the conversation."
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 23, 2011, 05:57:05 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2011, 05:42:20 PMIt obviously and on its face violates the minorities' rights to legally force them to use the majorities' language "markedly more predominantly" than their own on their business's signs - it is intended as a symbolic act of superiority by the majority over the minority. That's expressly what it is for. See section 58 of the Charter of the French Language.
Ah. I didn't realize the right to commercially advertize in English (or Urdu) only constituted such a crucial rampart against tyranny.
The symbolism of the Charter of the French Language was in making French visible - "normal and usual", in the language of the Charter - not qualitatively superior.
IMHO, you're ind of asking for it when you say that minority rights are in no way affected.
They are affected. You acknowledge it.
Now of course this is Canada, not the US, and rights are not absolute, and courts have found that the restrictions placed on the English language in commercial settings are 'no more than necessary" and are consistent with a valid legislative purpose.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 23, 2011, 05:57:23 PM
I think in the interests of fairness all Canadians should continue in French only in this thread.
That's not a good idea.
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2011, 05:56:53 PM
Oex, now you're not being fair.
French language is treated very differently from Cantonese or Urdu. You can not get a Cantonese trial. Your children are not entitled to a Cantonese-language education. You do not get government services in Cantonese.
Certainly there will never be another French speaking province, but that has been true for over a hundred years. Immigration patterns in Western Canada always made it extremely unlikely that there would be a French speaking population.
You are right. A side effect, perhaps, of the constant rehashing of the same argument - and the tone with which they are made. Or I am just tired.
I would contest that immigration patterns always ensured there would be another French speaking province. The Riel affair, and the Manitoba school question discouraged many French Canadian to settle westward - opting instead for closer United States. If one was not to get much, might as well move closer to one's family in New England. This was coupled, in Ontario, with an internal struggle between French Canadians and Irish as to whom would control the institutions of the Catholic Church. The Irish won, with important consequences for French in the province.
As for today, certainly there are still effects of having tried, over the years, and in many different instances, to reconcile the French element within Canadian nationalism - it is the reason I would prefer to get tenure in English Canada, say, than in the US - though I harbor no illusion about the dynamism of any sort of French community outside few places.
The reason why we return all the time to the past, is simply because the place of French in Canada is precisely grounded in the past, in national narratives, which the presentism of multi-culturalism, cost-benefit analysis, and liberalism, do their best to bracket away.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 23, 2011, 06:02:16 PM
Google translate gives this :
"Obviously this would suit me perfectly, especially since I am much more eloquent in my language (well, hopefully). But I fear this will severely limit the conversation."
Google translate is quite good.
Much better, indeed, than many Federal government employees... ;)
Yes, I was quite impressed with the quality of the translation.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 23, 2011, 05:57:23 PM
I think in the interests of fairness all Canadians should continue in French only in this thread.
Puis-je s'il vous plait aller a le sale de bain?
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 23, 2011, 06:11:04 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 23, 2011, 06:02:16 PM
Google translate gives this :
"Obviously this would suit me perfectly, especially since I am much more eloquent in my language (well, hopefully). But I fear this will severely limit the conversation."
Google translate is quite good.
Much better, indeed, than many Federal government employees... ;)
nice add lol
It seemed to fit...
Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose
Le premiere etoile Guy Lafleur
frere jacques
voulez vous couchez avec moi
merde
ou est la salle de bain
It made me laugh :)
Quote from: Josephus on August 23, 2011, 06:21:27 PM
Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose
Le premiere etoile Guy Lafleur
frere jacques
voulez vous couchez avec moi
merde
ou est la salle de bain
tabernac!
Quote from: Josephus on August 23, 2011, 06:21:27 PM
Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose
Le premiere etoile Guy Lafleur
frere jacques
voulez vous couchez avec moi
merde
ou est la salle de bain
The successes of second language French in Canada... :lol:
A somewhat common saying in English, something picked up from hockey, a XVIIth c. song no doubt learned in elementary school (you can substitute for Alouette, I would think...), a French crude pick-up line popularized by a pop song, a French version of an English swear word, and the sentence one needed to memorize to get out of class in high school French.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 23, 2011, 06:27:37 PM
Quote from: Josephus on August 23, 2011, 06:21:27 PM
Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose
Le premiere etoile Guy Lafleur
frere jacques
voulez vous couchez avec moi
merde
ou est la salle de bain
The successes of second language French in Canada... :lol:
A somewhat common saying in English, something picked up from hockey, a XVIIth c. song no doubt learned in elementary school (you can substitute for Alouette, I would think...), a French crude pick-up line popularized by a pop song, a French version of an English swear word, and the sentence one needed to memorize to get out of class in high school French.
Yeah...that's about it. :lol:
Except the first one was actually popularized in a song by an immortal English Canadian rock band, though popular in Quebec, Rush. ;)
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 23, 2011, 05:33:35 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2011, 04:36:33 PM
The language laws in Quebec serve the opposite function: to enhance the language rights of the french-speaking majority at the expense of the minority.
:rolleyes: Not again.
I have, time and again, asked you to explain how the language laws in Quebec violate "the minority's rights".
"The minority" school rights are protected. "The minority" whose rights are infringed, in this case, is the right of everyone who does not qualify for English schooling. Just like, in many jurisdiction, people who do not qualify for residency in one school board do not get to pick which school they send their kids to. Again, you might, like the Tea Partiers, deem this to be an intolerable infringement upon your personal freedom. You still have private schools, if you so desire.
The other "rights" infringed upon are the rights to chose the size of fonts, the right to omit a French version of the exact same advertizing. In this case, "the minority" are corporations or business owners. Having such requirements might be bad business policy, as you take pleasure in reminding us all the time, but I would be hard pressed to call that "oppression".
Why does the state having a pressing need to legislate font size? What is the purpose of this? Why does the Government need to enforce the use of French on private signage? That seems absurd.
Quote from: Grallon on August 23, 2011, 04:33:42 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2011, 04:11:45 PM
... They prefer French over English. That is the whole point.
As any culturally and sociologically coherent people composed of a large majority of French speaker would. You are indeed correct to state that that's the whole point. As aggravating as this is for our Anglo neighbors.
G.
Oh course not. That's why English is the predominant language of Louisiana.
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2011, 05:03:21 PM
Yeah, well, not being moved to tears by violations of the rights of minorities is not exactly an unknown position for you.
Oex went at it again - trying to reason with your 'blind spot' which is, in my opinion, futile since it is - you know - a blind spot. You don't see it, therefore you can't acknowledge it.
In any case you're correct in saying that I believe cultural minorities should adapt themselves to the customs of the majority rather than the other way around. In that light multiculturalism, in its Canadian flavor, is shown, once more, to be the pernicious intellectual fraud that it is.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on August 23, 2011, 07:15:43 PM
In any case you're correct in saying that I believe cultural minorities should adapt themselves to the customs of the majority rather than the other way around. In that light multiculturalism, in its Canadian flavor, is shown, once more, to be the pernicious intellectual fraud that it is.
G.
Well, since we agree to all that, we can remove the language laws and you all can speak English like civilized human beings.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 23, 2011, 05:58:58 PM
Évidemment, cela me conviendrait parfaitement, d'autant que je suis bien plus éloquent dans ma langue maternelle (enfin, j'espère). Mais je crains que cela ne limite sévèrement la conversation.
Obviously, I wouldn't mind, as I speak more eloquently in my mother language (at least, I hope so). However I believe that speaking thusly would severely limit the conversation.
Hey, I'm not that bad at this.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 23, 2011, 06:02:16 PM
Google translate gives this :
"Obviously this would suit me perfectly, especially since I am much more eloquent in my language (well, hopefully). But I fear this will severely limit the conversation."
FUCK YEAH. I am now fluent in four languages.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 23, 2011, 07:50:39 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 23, 2011, 06:02:16 PM
Google translate gives this :
"Obviously this would suit me perfectly, especially since I am much more eloquent in my language (well, hopefully). But I fear this will severely limit the conversation."
FUCK YEAH. I am now fluent in four languages.
English, French, Hillbilly, Briar.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 23, 2011, 07:55:49 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 23, 2011, 07:50:39 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 23, 2011, 06:02:16 PM
Google translate gives this :
"Obviously this would suit me perfectly, especially since I am much more eloquent in my language (well, hopefully). But I fear this will severely limit the conversation."
FUCK YEAH. I am now fluent in four languages.
English, French, Hillbilly, Briar.
:lol:
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 23, 2011, 06:27:37 PM
The successes of second language French in Canada... :lol:
Well, it is the second language, but English is the language of government, culture, business, sports, technology, the media and in fact civilization.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 23, 2011, 06:09:51 PM
The reason why we return all the time to the past, is simply because the place of French in Canada is precisely grounded in the past, in national narratives, which the presentism of multi-culturalism, cost-benefit analysis, and liberalism, do their best to bracket away.
I'm not sure how such an impasse would ever be bridged then. Most people find the 19th century irrelevant (or generously - of little importance) at this point, if they even are aware of the past.
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2011, 04:01:35 PM
Quote from: grumbler on August 23, 2011, 03:47:39 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2011, 03:18:47 PM
After all, I've had clients sued by Martians...
I seem to recall that story. Didn't the judge dismiss on the grounds that, if the plaintiff were correct, he had no grounds, as a Martian, to sue in that court?
Yup, that's the one - Martians aren't "persons" who could sue (the backgroud is that at the time it was very difficult to dismiss a case in Ontario in a summary manner for a factual reason - it has since grown easier. Hence the somewhat smartass ruling :D ).
Let's say an alien scientist was observing Earth and the Canadian Air Force detected him and shot him down and he sued, would his/her/it's case really be dismissed on that reasoning?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 23, 2011, 08:53:02 PM
Let's say an alien scientist was observing Earth and the Canadian air force detected him and shot him down and he sued, would his/her/it's case really be dismissed on that reasoning?
Of course. How could it not?
Heh, bringing the thread back on topic. Its the Royal Canadian Airforce you git.
Quote from: Neil on August 23, 2011, 09:07:10 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 23, 2011, 08:53:02 PM
Let's say an alien scientist was observing Earth and the Canadian air force detected him and shot him down and he sued, would his/her/it's case really be dismissed on that reasoning?
Of course. How could it not?
While there are certainly valid reasons to dismiss his claims, not being human should not be one of them.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 23, 2011, 06:11:04 PM
Google translate is quite good.
Much better, indeed, than many Federal government employees... ;)
It's the reason why the Federal government made cuts to the translation office (or whatever it's called) ;)
Quote from: Josephus on August 23, 2011, 06:21:27 PM
merde
reserved for French expatriate lost in the cold, bitter winters of Montreal ;)
Or for people working at Société Radio-Canada (French CBC) :D
Do French people ever really say "Sacre bleu"?
Quote from: Neil on August 23, 2011, 08:06:44 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 23, 2011, 06:27:37 PM
The successes of second language French in Canada... :lol:
Well, it is the second language, but English is the language of government, culture, business, sports, technology, the media and in fact civilization.
It makes sense since the French have no word for culture... ;)
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 23, 2011, 10:34:45 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 23, 2011, 09:07:10 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 23, 2011, 08:53:02 PM
Let's say an alien scientist was observing Earth and the Canadian air force detected him and shot him down and he sued, would his/her/it's case really be dismissed on that reasoning?
Of course. How could it not?
While there are certainly valid reasons to dismiss his claims, not being human should not be one of them.
Non-humans shouldn't be people. We'll add to the list as neccessary.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 23, 2011, 10:34:45 PM
While there are certainly valid reasons to dismiss his claims, not being human should not be one of them.
That's not the reason, as a simple re-reading of the relevant posts would show you.
Corporations are not human, and yet can sue. Why? I'll leave that to you to go back and discover.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 23, 2011, 10:51:04 PM
Do French people ever really say "Sacre bleu"?
We say "Sacrement" quite often, usually when pissed, but that's a Quebec thing.
Quote from: Neil on August 23, 2011, 10:54:49 PM
Non-humans shouldn't be people. We'll add to the list as neccessary.
While non-humans maybe "shouldn't" be persons, they sometimes are. For instance, corporations are legal persons and can undertake contracts, sue, and be sued.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 23, 2011, 05:57:05 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2011, 05:42:20 PMIt obviously and on its face violates the minorities' rights to legally force them to use the majorities' language "markedly more predominantly" than their own on their business's signs - it is intended as a symbolic act of superiority by the majority over the minority. That's expressly what it is for. See section 58 of the Charter of the French Language.
Ah. I didn't realize the right to commercially advertize in English (or Urdu) only constituted such a crucial rampart against tyranny.
The symbolism of the Charter of the French Language was in making French visible - "normal and usual", in the language of the Charter - not qualitatively superior.
No-one is claiming jackbooded thugs levels of oppression. But the language laws are clear and obvious examples of a majority group requiring superiority over minority groups by legal coersion, and so is the evidence that you demanded of me.
I contest that the laws do not require (for example) signs to be "qualitatively superior". On their face, they clearly do. For example:
http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/dynamicSearch/telecharge.php?type=2&file=/C_11/C11_A.html
Quote58. Public signs and posters and commercial advertising must be in French.
They may also be both in French and in another language provided that French is markedly predominant.
Why the requirement that French be "markedly predominant", rather than (say) equal? It's an assertion of superiority.
Why must you attribute malice. Maybe quebecers are just prone to near-sightedness. Ever consider that? :P
Because it relates to commercial advertizing, I would argue it is about visibility. No one is saying French is "better". Only, that it needs to be more visible.
In that case, I would also therefore argue that the vexation this might constitute is not commensurate with the sort of outrage it generates. A comparison of the treatment of those two parallel "outrages" generate - the 7-up guy and the Alliance Quebec guys - is enlightening.
And, once again, we meet a fundamental disagreement, which goes beyond the Quebec issue. You hold that legal provisions, however limited in their potential scope and application, constitute a greater measure of coercion than social or economic pressures - presumably because the latter can be construed as voluntary, whereas the former can not. I do not agree. This is a philosophical divergence that will probably not be bridged.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 24, 2011, 10:50:26 AM
Because it relates to commercial advertizing, I would argue it is about visibility. No one is saying French is "better". Only, that it needs to be more visible.
I'd love to see the reaction in Quebec if Ontario passed a law stating "you must use English on your signs. You can use French, but it has to be less visible". :D
QuoteIn that case, I would also therefore argue that the vexation this might constitute is not commensurate with the sort of outrage it generates. A comparison of the treatment of those two parallel "outrages" generate - the 7-up guy and the Alliance Quebec guys - is enlightening.
Yes, do compare them.
On the one hand, a lone individual suing a company for an absurd amount of money over being unable to order a soft drink in the language of his choice. Not, mind you, that he was actually inconveninced or humiliated in any way.
On the other, a law that applies to every commercial expression in the province, and which effectively makes it impossible to simply import out-of-province materials for use in the province, unless they are unilingual French (everywhere else in the world materials are bilingual or trilingual - no-one, except for Quebec, makes one language "markedly more predominant").
QuoteAnd, once again, we meet a fundamental disagreement, which goes beyond the Quebec issue. You hold that legal provisions, however limited in their potential scope and application, constitute a greater measure of coercion than social or economic pressures - presumably because the latter can be construed as voluntary, whereas the former can not. I do not agree. This is a philosophical divergence that will probably not be bridged.
Perhaps not. But on the other hand, I dispute that a law that applies to all advertising and signage in a province is such a minor thing - indeed, yesterday I had very convincing proof of it, as I was at a meeting in which a major retailer listed Quebec as "last choice" for expansion due to entry costs imposed by these coerceive measures.
Quote from: Malthus on August 24, 2011, 10:59:11 AM
Perhaps not. But on the other hand, I dispute that a law that applies to all advertising and signage in a province is such a minor thing - indeed, yesterday I had very convincing proof of it, as I was at a meeting in which a major retailer listed Quebec as "last choice" for expansion due to entry costs imposed by these coerceive measures.
I guess I do not really understand that. If you are going to enter into any market you have lots of hoops to jump through. Is changing the French copy from 10 pt font to 12 pt font really that big of a deal? I presume there are other coercive measures besides that? I mean I presume one would have to have everything in French to operate in a French speaking market anyway.
I read somewhere too, btw, that franchises like, for instance, Wendy's in CAnada use the Maple Leaf in their logo instead of the apostrophe. Because otherwise they can't put "Wendy's" which doesn't translate as such in French. Or something.
Quote from: Josephus on August 24, 2011, 11:05:03 AM
I read somewhere too, btw, that franchises like, for instance, Wendy's in CAnada use the Maple Leaf in their logo instead of the apostrophe. Because otherwise they can't put "Wendy's" which doesn't translate as such in French. Or something.
Woah...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_lmbx222rIH1qgbrct.jpg&hash=7646ab91b8fbb14a3c45c4feeec2e2193aa3d734)
Oddly it looks less French having a Maple Leaf in there.
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2011, 11:09:12 AM
Oddly it looks less French having a Maple Leaf in there.
Not only is Valmy practically French he is also a separatist.
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2011, 11:00:48 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 24, 2011, 10:59:11 AM
Perhaps not. But on the other hand, I dispute that a law that applies to all advertising and signage in a province is such a minor thing - indeed, yesterday I had very convincing proof of it, as I was at a meeting in which a major retailer listed Quebec as "last choice" for expansion due to entry costs imposed by these coerceive measures.
I guess I do not really understand that. If you are going to enter into any market you have lots of hoops to jump through. Is changing the French copy from 10 pt font to 12 pt font really that big of a deal? I presume there are other coercive measures besides that?
There are lots (that's just the easiest one to explain).
The problem is this: companies prefer as much as possible to use interchangable materials; where regulations are different in different jurisdictions, they like to simply include the difference (for example, "not valid in California" or "as required by California regulations, XXXX ...".
This means only one set of materials need be produced.
Now, for Canada, sometimes the differences are so great that all-new materials must be produced. However, often the artwork and layout can be the same, just diferent text substituted, keeping costs down.
This isn't the case where one set of text must be "markedly more predominant" than the other. Everything must be redesigned, adding to the cost and complexity of distribution.
That cost poses a barrier to entry. Obviously not by any means an insurmountable one; but it does detract from the attractiveness of expanding into the province, if the choice is (say) between Toronto or Montreal.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 24, 2011, 11:10:48 AM
Not only is Valmy practically French he is also a separatist.
:( No Pierre Trudeau points for me.
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2011, 11:00:48 AM
I guess I do not really understand that. If you are going to enter into any market you have lots of hoops to jump through. Is changing the French copy from 10 pt font to 12 pt font really that big of a deal? I presume there are other coercive measures besides that? I mean I presume one would have to have everything in French to operate in a French speaking market anyway.
I do not understand it either. My guess is that people make it a big deal - out of a variety of cultural reasons. But such arguments are always countered by variations over "the market doesn't recognize cultural arguments". Yet, I am not convinced.
Again, Quebec does not allow advertizing targetted at children - yet, of course, this might be denounced as silly, but it strangely has more legitimate grounds as a "cultural exception".
Apart from the advertizing, my guess is that the biggest beef of corporations and retailers is that the work-related materials need to be in French (i.e. training manuals, security signs, etc.). It can cause a problem when machinery / computers / programmes are bought, which come with 500-pages users' manual in English only.
Still, sometimes, it is hard not to ascribe it to bad faith. Take Corel, for instance - a Canadian company based in Ottawa. Its Canadian website is in English only. And so is its customer service. Yet Corel has everything already translated for its French website and market. It just doesn't make a French version in Canada.
I guess what I don't understand is this notion that Anglosphere is out to get the Francophones. Apart from when the latter complain, it seems like the former never really think about them - so more neglect than outright malice.
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2011, 11:13:26 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 24, 2011, 11:10:48 AM
Not only is Valmy practically French he is also a separatist.
:( No Pierre Trudeau points for me.
Correct. You would have to speak the language of equal bilingualism found in the Languages Act for that. Also I am pretty sure none of our friends from Quebec would not feel comfortable having Trudeau points awarded for defence of the Quebec language laws.
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2011, 11:18:33 AM
I guess what I don't understand is this notion that Anglosphere is out to get the Francophones. Apart from when the latter complain, it seems like the former never really think about them - so more neglect than outright malice.
Do you know this for a fact? I mean my exposure to Canada is generally limited to this board and stuff about the National Hockey League.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 24, 2011, 11:20:11 AM
Also I am pretty sure none of our friends from Quebec would not feel comfortable having Trudeau points awarded for defence of the Quebec language laws.
None of our friends from Quebec would not feel...
So...wait...what?
In any case I am not trying to defend the Quebec language laws I am just trying to understand what makes them so coercive. I mean if you were going to expand your business into Mexico you would have to translate everything into Spanish right? How is that different?
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2011, 11:18:33 AM
I guess what I don't understand is this notion that Anglosphere is out to get the Francophones. Apart from when the latter complain, it seems like the former never really think about them - so more neglect than outright malice.
The thing you are missing in this context is we do hear ignorant Quebec and French bashing that does go on in English Canada from time to time. All Canadians are not as polite as languishites. :D
Viper picked this case as one such example. I dont think he is right about that, but it certainly does occur.
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2011, 11:20:24 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2011, 11:18:33 AM
I guess what I don't understand is this notion that Anglosphere is out to get the Francophones. Apart from when the latter complain, it seems like the former never really think about them - so more neglect than outright malice.
Do you know this for a fact? I mean my exposure to Canada is generally limited to this board and stuff about the National Hockey League.
I don't know I mean maybe corps run differently in Canada - and all our Anglo posters are lying - but it hardly seems probable that there is some sort of piecemeal conspiracy* out there.
Not that all the individuals are acting in a unified manner but that individually happen to all be approaching the same negative goal.
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2011, 11:23:28 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 24, 2011, 11:20:11 AM
Also I am pretty sure none of our friends from Quebec would not feel comfortable having Trudeau points awarded for defence of the Quebec language laws.
None of our friends from Quebec would not feel...
So...wait...what?
Yeah, take out the not before feel
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 24, 2011, 11:23:53 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2011, 11:18:33 AM
I guess what I don't understand is this notion that Anglosphere is out to get the Francophones. Apart from when the latter complain, it seems like the former never really think about them - so more neglect than outright malice.
The thing you are missing in this context is we do hear ignorant Quebec and French bashing that does go on in English Canada from time to time. All Canadians are not as polite as languishites. :D
Viper picked this case as one such example. I dont think he is right about that, but it certainly does occur.
Fair enough - I mean there may be some malice out there but enough to take offense at Corel's website?
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 24, 2011, 11:14:33 AM
Still, sometimes, it is hard not to ascribe it to bad faith. Take Corel, for instance - a Canadian company based in Ottawa. Its Canadian website is in English only. And so is its customer service. Yet Corel has everything already translated for its French website and market. It just doesn't make a French version in Canada.
A non-priority doesn't have to mean bad faith, does it?
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2011, 11:24:59 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 24, 2011, 11:23:53 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2011, 11:18:33 AM
I guess what I don't understand is this notion that Anglosphere is out to get the Francophones. Apart from when the latter complain, it seems like the former never really think about them - so more neglect than outright malice.
The thing you are missing in this context is we do hear ignorant Quebec and French bashing that does go on in English Canada from time to time. All Canadians are not as polite as languishites. :D
Viper picked this case as one such example. I dont think he is right about that, but it certainly does occur.
Fair enough - I mean there may be some malice out there but enough to take offense at Corel's website?
It does seem odd to me that Corel would have a French Website but not have it set up in Canada. True it could be pure incompetence or as you say complete disregard. But this is a corporation which is walking distance to the Quebec border. I can understand why someone might think that disregard borders on malice.
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2011, 11:23:28 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 24, 2011, 11:20:11 AM
Also I am pretty sure none of our friends from Quebec would not feel comfortable having Trudeau points awarded for defence of the Quebec language laws.
None of our friends from Quebec would not feel...
So...wait...what?
In any case I am not trying to defend the Quebec language laws I am just trying to understand what makes them so coercive. I mean if you were going to expand your business into Mexico you would have to translate everything into Spanish right? How is that different?
Market size, most likely. mexico has 100,000, quebec 10,000. not sure how many speak french as their primary language.
So i don't know how much the language laws keep people from doing going into the quebec market beyond the fact that not only do they have to change packaging (which they would have to doin other markets) but more that they have to change the packaging in a special way and might just say "fuck it".
The doublesized text thing doesn't really bother me, just seems childish. i can understand having both french and english, but making one bigger? really? Where the language laws screwed over quebec are in corporations. Bank of Montreal is headquartered in Toronto for gods sake. Montreal and Toronto used to compete for Canada's center of commerce. Not anymore.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 24, 2011, 10:50:26 AM
Because it relates to commercial advertizing, I would argue it is about visibility. No one is saying French is "better". Only, that it needs to be more visible.
Why? Why is this a matter for government? Why does the State have a compelling reason to do this? Why is more important that the French be in a larger font then the English? Can you have private signs that have no French on them, only Swahili or English or Navaho?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 24, 2011, 11:35:21 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 24, 2011, 10:50:26 AM
Because it relates to commercial advertizing, I would argue it is about visibility. No one is saying French is "better". Only, that it needs to be more visible.
Why? Why is this a matter for government? Why does the State have a compelling reason to do this? Why is more important that the French be in a larger font then the English? Can you have private signs that have no French on them, only Swahili or English or Navaho?
i don't think so. IIRC china town stores got fined for not having french on their signs. but i could very well be remembering incorrectly.
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2011, 11:23:28 AM
In any case I am not trying to defend the Quebec language laws I am just trying to understand what makes them so coercive. I mean if you were going to expand your business into Mexico you would have to translate everything into Spanish right? How is that different?
You could (and companies do) simply include Spanish language right alongside whatever other languages you wish to do business in.
Can't do that in Quebec, the French has to be "predominant". So unless you want the French to be predominant everywhere you do business, you MUST have separate documentation, advertising, etc., etc.
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2011, 11:23:28 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 24, 2011, 11:20:11 AM
Also I am pretty sure none of our friends from Quebec would not feel comfortable having Trudeau points awarded for defence of the Quebec language laws.
None of our friends from Quebec would not feel...
So...wait...what?
In any case I am not trying to defend the Quebec language laws I am just trying to understand what makes them so coercive. I mean if you were going to expand your business into Mexico you would have to translate everything into Spanish right? How is that different?
The issue of Mexico is a good example.
Say you are an American company. Your materials are already produced in trilingual versions (as is often the case) to cater to various constituancies.
Would Mexico reject the materials
even though there is a Spanish version already as not being "Spanish enough" because the Spanish version wasn't 2/3 larger than the English and French versions?
Now, say you are marketing in Canada with the same materials. They would be acceptable everywhere, as there are some bilingual requirements in some forms of labelling for regulated products - but trilingual would satisfy those standards ... except of course in Quebec.
So if you are marketing in NA, the ordinary average everyday trilingual materials would be acceptable continent-wide - from the bottom of Mexico to the top of Nunavat ... except in Quebec. Who, for no other reason than to assert the superiority of its francophone majority over the anglo minority, insists that all advertising materials be different.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 24, 2011, 11:35:21 AM
Why? Why is this a matter for government?
Because the voters want it to be and politicians like getting votes.
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2011, 11:38:35 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 24, 2011, 11:35:21 AM
Why? Why is this a matter for government?
Because the voters want it to be and politicians like getting votes.
Our Constitution prevents some of these idiotic things in our country. I guess Canada has no such safeguard. But still, that's kicking the can down the road. Why do the
voters want such a law.
Quote from: Malthus on August 24, 2011, 11:38:04 AM
So if you are marketing in NA, the ordinary average everyday trilingual materials would be acceptable continent-wide - from the bottom of Mexico to the top of Nunavat ... except in Quebec. Who, for no other reason than to assert the superiority of its francophone majority over the anglo minority, insists that all advertising materials be different.
Really it is like we are having two different conversations. Oex brings up a corp who refuses to have stuff in French at all and big manuals that are in English only. Then you bring up how French alone is not sufficient and materials that have to be produced for Quebec only must be made.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 24, 2011, 11:35:21 AM
Why? Why is this a matter for government? Why does the State have a compelling reason to do this? Why is more important that the French be in a larger font then the English? Can you have private signs that have no French on them, only Swahili or English or Navaho?
Probably for the same reason the Federal Government created an Act requiring service in French where that service is reasonably required. Votes.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 24, 2011, 11:42:14 AM
Our Constitution prevents some of these idiotic things in our country.
Out Constitution allows all sorts of idiotic things in our country. Maybe not this particular idiotic thing though. The first amendment would prevent it I presume.
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2011, 11:42:54 AM
Really it is like we are having two different conversations. Oex brings up a corp who refuses to have stuff in French at all and big manuals that are in English only. Then you bring up how French alone is not sufficient and materials that have to be produced for Quebec only must be made.
Yes there is a nuance between access to materials in French, which is what the Federal Law does, and creating the predominance of one Language - which the Quebec law does. I am not sure you are getting that distinction yet.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 24, 2011, 11:43:21 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 24, 2011, 11:35:21 AM
Why? Why is this a matter for government? Why does the State have a compelling reason to do this? Why is more important that the French be in a larger font then the English? Can you have private signs that have no French on them, only Swahili or English or Navaho?
Probably for the same reason the Federal Government created an Act requiring service in French where that service is reasonably required. Votes.
Like I said to Valmy, why do the voters want it then.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 24, 2011, 11:28:03 AM
It does seem odd to me that Corel would have a French Website but not have it set up in Canada. True it could be pure incompetence or as you say complete disregard. But this is a corporation which is walking distance to the Quebec border. I can understand why someone might think that disregard borders on malice.
Maybe although it looks like they have websites in a lot of different languages - even Czech and Russian. Is the claim then that Corel really dislikes Quebec so they are willing to make accommodations for France, the Czech Republic and Russia before they would stoop to accommodate French-speaking Canada?
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2011, 11:50:42 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 24, 2011, 11:28:03 AM
It does seem odd to me that Corel would have a French Website but not have it set up in Canada. True it could be pure incompetence or as you say complete disregard. But this is a corporation which is walking distance to the Quebec border. I can understand why someone might think that disregard borders on malice.
Maybe although it looks like they have websites in a lot of different languages - even Czech and Russian. Is the claim then that Corel really dislikes Quebec so they are willing to make accommodations for France, the Czech Republic and Russia before they would stoop to accommodate French-speaking Canada?
I dont know what the explanation is. It does seem very odd. Why do you think they would not provide service in French in Canada but provide service in French in other countries?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 24, 2011, 11:50:36 AM
Like I said to Valmy, why do the voters want it then.
For the same reason voters vote for anything - they percieve it to be in their self interest or in the interest of the country for those few voters that might look beyond their own self interest.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 24, 2011, 11:50:36 AM
Like I said to Valmy, why do the voters want it then.
That is a better question for our Quebeckers but I assume it is because politicians are bravely claiming they are defending Quebec's heritage and culture from evil liberal...er...I mean Anglo subversion.
Could be malice, or could just be they figure quebecers would just go to the .fr site. Corporations on a whole rarely work on malice. Unless all the IT guys and Baard of directors really hate quebec and veto'd the implementation or something. Oversite and stupidty is often a more accurate theory.
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2011, 11:42:54 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 24, 2011, 11:38:04 AM
So if you are marketing in NA, the ordinary average everyday trilingual materials would be acceptable continent-wide - from the bottom of Mexico to the top of Nunavat ... except in Quebec. Who, for no other reason than to assert the superiority of its francophone majority over the anglo minority, insists that all advertising materials be different.
Really it is like we are having two different conversations. Oex brings up a corp who refuses to have stuff in French at all and big manuals that are in English only. Then you bring up how French alone is not sufficient and materials that have to be produced for Quebec only must be made.
He said that in response to someone remarking that doing business in Quebec with their language laws seems no different than doing business anywhere with a different language.
Malthus response states precisely why it is in fact different. Not in response to Oex complaining about Corel (which I don't really get - if it offends you that Corel doesn't have a French language website, isn't there a REALLY obvious solution?), although it did come after that post.
That is one of the challenges of a topic in a forum. Just because Post B comes after Post A does not mean it is necessarily in response to post A.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 24, 2011, 11:45:07 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2011, 11:42:54 AM
Really it is like we are having two different conversations. Oex brings up a corp who refuses to have stuff in French at all and big manuals that are in English only. Then you bring up how French alone is not sufficient and materials that have to be produced for Quebec only must be made.
Yes there is a nuance between access to materials in French, which is what the Federal Law does, and creating the predominance of one Language - which the Quebec law does. I am not sure you are getting that distinction yet.
I get the predominance part I was asking about the ramifications of it. I was just observing that Oex hits on points where French is excluded entirely to defend them when they issue claimed by Malthus is that French being included is not sufficient.
It does make me wonder why they bother translating everything into French anyway if that product cannot be sold in Quebec but I suppose that is to satisfy Canadian federal requirements.
Quote from: HVC on August 24, 2011, 11:55:19 AM
Could be malice, or could just be they figure quebecers would just go to the .fr site. Corporations on a whole rarely work on malice. Unless all the IT guys and Baard of directors really hate quebec and veto'd the implementation or something. Oversite and stupidty is often a more accurate theory.
Seems rather bizarre that the Francophones are so convinced of this massive conspiracy. On the other hand, I guess it isn't paranoia if they really are out to get you...?
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2011, 11:56:45 AM
It does make me wonder why they bother translating everything into French anyway if that product cannot be sold in Quebec but I suppose that is to satisfy Canadian federal requirements.
There is this entire other country with lots of people who all speak French. It is called "France".
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2011, 11:56:45 AM
I get the predominance part I was asking about the ramifications of it. I was just observing that Oex hits on points where French is excluded entirely to defend them when they issue claimed by Malthus is that French being included is not sufficient.
I think you are mixing things up the way Berkut suggested.
Quote from: Berkut on August 24, 2011, 11:58:05 AM
There is this entire other country with lots of people who all speak French. It is called "France".
I am talking about products for the North American market.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 24, 2011, 11:52:37 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2011, 11:50:42 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 24, 2011, 11:28:03 AM
It does seem odd to me that Corel would have a French Website but not have it set up in Canada. True it could be pure incompetence or as you say complete disregard. But this is a corporation which is walking distance to the Quebec border. I can understand why someone might think that disregard borders on malice.
Maybe although it looks like they have websites in a lot of different languages - even Czech and Russian. Is the claim then that Corel really dislikes Quebec so they are willing to make accommodations for France, the Czech Republic and Russia before they would stoop to accommodate French-speaking Canada?
I dont know what the explanation is. It does seem very odd. Why do you think they would not provide service in French in Canada but provide service in French in other countries?
Non-priority, maybe? After all, it probably wouldn't take long to overlay the French onto a version of the Canadian site and then make sure it was localized properly for the French Canadian dialect - but you do have to assign someone to do it.
I did notice that the Canada version does allow you to buy the French version of products and in the US your option is a Spanish version. I suppose it would also be nice if there was a Spanish version of the US site - given that there are more Spanish speaking people in the US than I believe there are French speaking people in Canada (relying on wikipedia for this effort :blush:)
Quote from: Berkut on August 24, 2011, 11:58:05 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2011, 11:56:45 AM
It does make me wonder why they bother translating everything into French anyway if that product cannot be sold in Quebec but I suppose that is to satisfy Canadian federal requirements.
There is this entire other country with lots of people who all speak French. It is called "France".
Not to mention all the other countries in the world that have French speakers.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 24, 2011, 11:59:18 AM
Not to mention all the other countries in the world that have French speakers.
Again...products for the North American market are usually translated into three languages. I doubt this is to sell them in Haiti.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 24, 2011, 11:58:28 AM
I think you are mixing things up the way Berkut suggested.
Um Oex said that specifically to point out how the language laws are not a big deal. So far that was the only defense of them I have seen in this thread. I guess my question is if things are usually introduced into Quebec where all three languages are usually listed equally. Are they responding to the English usually being on top and in larger font which is not unusually the case with products here? Because if not I guess I have to agree that it is an economically damaging and probably short-sighted harmful policy that does not really do much to advance French.
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2011, 11:59:13 AM
I suppose it would also be nice if there was a Spanish version of the US site - given that there are more Spanish speaking people in the US than I believe there are French speaking people in Canada (relying on wikipedia for this effort :blush:)
According to Wikipedia there are more Spanish speaking people in the US than there are people in Canada.
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2011, 11:54:13 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 24, 2011, 11:50:36 AM
Like I said to Valmy, why do the voters want it then.
That is a better question for our Quebeckers but I assume it is because politicians are bravely claiming they are defending Quebec's heritage and culture from evil liberal...er...I mean Anglo subversion.
I could see that as an excuse for why both languages must be on a sign (sorta of I guess), but not why French font must be larger then any other language.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 24, 2011, 12:08:22 PM
I could see that as an excuse for why both languages must be on a sign (sorta of I guess), but not why French font must be larger then any other language.
There has to be a story behind that. Legislation like that usually comes in reaction to some outrage or another.
Quote from: Berkut on August 24, 2011, 11:58:05 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2011, 11:56:45 AM
It does make me wonder why they bother translating everything into French anyway if that product cannot be sold in Quebec but I suppose that is to satisfy Canadian federal requirements.
There is this entire other country with lots of people who all speak French. It is called "France".
The French have a similar mindset. After all they have ancient institutions dedicated to preservation of the French language from corruption of less pure languages. There is a cultural difference here I suppose. There is no body governing the use of English. And the idea of one existing would strike most English Speakers as strange. Note: The French have never really been bothered preserving other languages. They gleefully made efforts to exterminate other languages in Metropolitan France.
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2011, 12:02:27 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 24, 2011, 11:58:28 AM
I think you are mixing things up the way Berkut suggested.
Um Oex said that specifically to point out how the language laws are not a big deal. So far that was the only defense of them I have seen in this thread. I guess my question is if things are usually introduced into Quebec where all three languages are usually listed equally. Are they responding to the English usually being on top and in larger font which is not unusually the case with products here? Because if not I guess I have to agree that it is an economically damaging and probably short-sighted harmful policy that does not really do much to advance French.
The "French must predominate" thing causing difficulties with company launches in Quebec is an unintended consequence.
The reason French must predominate is historical. In the past, Anglophones dominated the economic life of Quebec. Power shifted, and the Francophone majority gained more power. They (justly enough) wanted their rights preserved, but they also went further - they wished to redress the preceived "historical humiliation" of being economically dominated in their own province. Hence, taking measures to assert that they, the majority, are now in power, and not any minority - such as "French must predominate". It's a largely symbolic assertion of supremacy of one group over another.
Taking measures to ensure the domination of a majority over a minority, however "minor", is never a pleasant or worthwhile thing, whatever the justifications advanced for it. In this case, it comes with (unintended) costs - it makes Quebec a less attractive jurisdiction for business.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 24, 2011, 12:16:05 PM
The French have a similar mindset. After all they have ancient institutions dedicated to preservation of the French language from corruption of less pure languages.
There are good reasons for that. French, the language, was a very important unifying political tool that reversed the Balkanization of France. It is a big antiquated today but, you know, old institutions have powerful inertia. I do not think the mindset is similar they are reaction to very different things.
QuoteNote: The French have never really been bothered preserving other languages. They gleefully made efforts to exterminate other languages in Metropolitan France.
Well yeah that was the entire point of regulating the language in the first place. Having dozens on languages in one country is pretty historicaly destructive in Europe. I think every European country tried to regulate the language inside its borders. Italy faced the problem that Italian was not widely spoken in Italy but they fixed that and Britain did similar things with its minority languages....most famously in Ireland.
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2011, 12:37:39 PM
There are good reasons for that.
Don't you mean, maybe at best, that there *were* good reasons for that?
Quote
French, the language, was a very important unifying political tool that reversed the Balkanization of France.
Past tense.
Quote
It is a big antiquated today but, you know, old institutions have powerful inertia.
I would call this a rather bad reason, today. I cannot think of too many examples of "good reasons" that amount to "old institutions have powerful inertia".
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2011, 12:37:39 PM
There are good reasons for that. French, the language, was a very important unifying political tool that reversed the Balkanization of France. It is a big antiquated today but, you know, old institutions have powerful inertia. I do not think the mindset is similar they are reaction to very different things.
In the process, it made the more-adaptable-by-comparison English language much more able to conquer the world.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 24, 2011, 01:21:20 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2011, 12:37:39 PM
There are good reasons for that. French, the language, was a very important unifying political tool that reversed the Balkanization of France. It is a big antiquated today but, you know, old institutions have powerful inertia. I do not think the mindset is similar they are reaction to very different things.
In the process, it made the more-adaptable-by-comparison English language much more able to conquer the world.
to be fair english on it's own didn't out compete french. a world spanning empire and a super power is why english is the new linga franca.
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2011, 12:37:39 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 24, 2011, 12:16:05 PM
The French have a similar mindset. After all they have ancient institutions dedicated to preservation of the French language from corruption of less pure languages.
There are good reasons for that. French, the language, was a very important unifying political tool that reversed the Balkanization of France. It is a big antiquated today but, you know, old institutions have powerful inertia. I do not think the mindset is similar they are reaction to very different things.
QuoteNote: The French have never really been bothered preserving other languages. They gleefully made efforts to exterminate other languages in Metropolitan France.
Well yeah that was the entire point of regulating the language in the first place. Having dozens on languages in one country is pretty historicaly destructive in Europe. I think every European country tried to regulate the language inside its borders. Italy faced the problem that Italian was not widely spoken in Italy but they fixed that and Britain did similar things with its minority languages....most famously in Ireland.
The Academie is tasked with the preservation of purity of the French language. This implies a superior position of French compared to other languages which would presumably make French impure. The motive seems very similar, to keep the French language in a state of superiority to other languages.
Incidentally, you made an argument for
not preserving French in Canada, as you pointed out it is "Historically destructive".
Quote from: Malthus on August 24, 2011, 11:38:04 AM
Would Mexico reject the materials even though there is a Spanish version already as not being "Spanish enough" because the Spanish version wasn't 2/3 larger than the English and French versions?
We're getting into quite the technical details.
* Labelling, manuals, etc. needs to have a French version. These need not be predominantly French. This includes packaging. In other words, you can't have, as it happened before, a whole package in English, with a small sticker added with a minuscule French version. You can have a package where the lettering of French, English or Spanish is equal.
* All non-profit material can be unilingual
* Stand-alone commercial advertising - i.e. flyers, banners, ads, are those targetted by the Charter.
* Commercial advertising as inserts, i.e., that you find in newspapers, can be unilingual - as long as a French version is available. I.e., The Bay produces two versions of the same flyer, one inserted in French newspapers, one in English.
* Same, of course, for TV ads. There are no bilingual TV or radio ads.
It seems clear to me you guys don't understand why Quebec would want its language laws. It's not merely about being a "largely symbolic assertion of supremacy".
The simple fact is that most Francophones know English (or enough English to get by), but most anglos do not know French. I've numerous times had the experience of entering a room where a couple of francophones are talking - and they then must speak in English to continue the discussion.
Quebec had the experience that even in francophone owned and operated business, most of the day to day language being spoken was English. They wanted, for a variety of reasons, to change it so that the predominate language of Quebec, both at home and in business, was in French.
Ontario has no reason to mandate the use of English because the use of English is in no way in threat in Ontario. Arguing along that line seems to me similar to the "gays have the same right to marry the opposite sex as anyone else does". It's simply not the same situation.
Now does Quebec take an economic hit for its language laws? Of course it does. But they have either chosen to ignore that fact, or have accepted it as a cost worth paying in order to ensure the use of French in the province.
As I said before - there is probably room for imrovement around the edges on the implementation of Bill 101 (really - a Chinese restaurant has to have French predominate?), but if you think your language is worth fighting for, I understand why they are doing it.
Quote from: HVC on August 24, 2011, 01:25:55 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 24, 2011, 01:21:20 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2011, 12:37:39 PM
There are good reasons for that. French, the language, was a very important unifying political tool that reversed the Balkanization of France. It is a big antiquated today but, you know, old institutions have powerful inertia. I do not think the mindset is similar they are reaction to very different things.
In the process, it made the more-adaptable-by-comparison English language much more able to conquer the world.
to be fair english on it's own didn't out compete french. a world spanning empire and a super power is why english is the new linga franca.
France had an empire as well. Unfortunately for France, French power peaked about 200 hundred years ago. It remained a prestige language through out the 19th century. Americans, Britons, Russians, etc would learn French in an effort to be sophisticated. Sadly as France has decline in relative power the luster of the French language has waned and we must make do with the base grunts and howls that is the English language.
Quote from: Barrister on August 24, 2011, 01:35:35 PM
It seems clear to me you guys don't understand why Quebec would want its language laws. It's not merely about being a "largely symbolic assertion of supremacy".
The simple fact is that most Francophones know English (or enough English to get by), but most anglos do not know French. I've numerous times had the experience of entering a room where a couple of francophones are talking - and they then must speak in English to continue the discussion.
Quebec had the experience that even in francophone owned and operated business, most of the day to day language being spoken was English. They wanted, for a variety of reasons, to change it so that the predominate language of Quebec, both at home and in business, was in French.
Ontario has no reason to mandate the use of English because the use of English is in no way in threat in Ontario. Arguing along that line seems to me similar to the "gays have the same right to marry the opposite sex as anyone else does". It's simply not the same situation.
Now does Quebec take an economic hit for its language laws? Of course it does. But they have either chosen to ignore that fact, or have accepted it as a cost worth paying in order to ensure the use of French in the province.
As I said before - there is probably room for imrovement around the edges on the implementation of Bill 101 (really - a Chinese restaurant has to have French predominate?), but if you think your language is worth fighting for, I understand why they are doing it.
This argument would carry more weight if the signs merely said that it had to have French on them. But as Malthus says French must predominate. That goes beyond utility. That's making a statement of importance.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 24, 2011, 01:38:41 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 24, 2011, 01:35:35 PM
It seems clear to me you guys don't understand why Quebec would want its language laws. It's not merely about being a "largely symbolic assertion of supremacy".
The simple fact is that most Francophones know English (or enough English to get by), but most anglos do not know French. I've numerous times had the experience of entering a room where a couple of francophones are talking - and they then must speak in English to continue the discussion.
Quebec had the experience that even in francophone owned and operated business, most of the day to day language being spoken was English. They wanted, for a variety of reasons, to change it so that the predominate language of Quebec, both at home and in business, was in French.
Ontario has no reason to mandate the use of English because the use of English is in no way in threat in Ontario. Arguing along that line seems to me similar to the "gays have the same right to marry the opposite sex as anyone else does". It's simply not the same situation.
Now does Quebec take an economic hit for its language laws? Of course it does. But they have either chosen to ignore that fact, or have accepted it as a cost worth paying in order to ensure the use of French in the province.
As I said before - there is probably room for imrovement around the edges on the implementation of Bill 101 (really - a Chinese restaurant has to have French predominate?), but if you think your language is worth fighting for, I understand why they are doing it.
This argument would carry more weight if the signs merely said that it had to have French on them. But as Malthus says French must predominate. That goes beyond utility. That's making a statement of importance.
It's because it's not about having French available - it's about making French the predominate language in Quebec.
So in other words, I agree with you. It's not about utility. It is a statement of importance. But why is that such a terrible thing?
Quote from: HVC on August 24, 2011, 11:55:19 AM
Could be malice, or could just be they figure quebecers would just go to the .fr site. Corporations on a whole rarely work on malice. Unless all the IT guys and Baard of directors really hate quebec and veto'd the implementation or something. Oversite and stupidty is often a more accurate theory.
Er... No. If I want to buy the product in Canadian dollars, with Canadian service, why would I go to the .fr site - especially when the site adjusts to the IP adress?
Just in case it was oversight, I wrote an email (in English) asking why this was the case. Twice. Over a year ago. I have yet to receive an answer. I also asked in person, when I needed customer service, to have someone who spoke French talk to me. It never happened.
And, yes, this was but a single example. But when you multiply these examples in your personal life, you get frustrated - or you get the message that to get service in any kind, you should learn English. Which is what people here seem to be championing anyway - yet this is a different form of coercion. But since it is from the market, it is all alright.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 24, 2011, 01:40:51 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 24, 2011, 11:55:19 AM
Could be malice, or could just be they figure quebecers would just go to the .fr site. Corporations on a whole rarely work on malice. Unless all the IT guys and Baard of directors really hate quebec and veto'd the implementation or something. Oversite and stupidty is often a more accurate theory.
Er... No. If I want to buy the product in Canadian dollars, with Canadian service, why would I go to the .fr site - especially when the site adjusts to the IP adress?
Just in case it was oversight, I wrote an email (in English) asking why this was the case. Twice. Over a year ago. I have yet to receive an answer. I also asked in person, when I needed customer service, to have someone who spoke French talk to me. It never happened.
And, yes, this was but a single example. But when you multiply these examples in your personal life, you get frustrated - or you get the message that to get service in any kind, you should learn English. Which is what people here seem to be championing anyway - yet this is a different form of coercion. But since it is from the market, it is all alright.
Irritating, but what are you going to do?
Corel is a corporation that has seen better days. They may well just not see the cost of providing French service in Canada as worth the loss in sales. How can you mandate what an Ontario based company is going to do?
Hell - until you told me I thought Corel was surely out of business by now.
I must say this discussion about Quebecers and their collective motivations is surrealist when the input provided by actual Quebecers are dismissed as either irrelevant or wrong or malicious. But then again English Canadians often show extremely bad faith about this particular topic.
G.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 24, 2011, 01:40:51 PM
Er... No. If I want to buy the product in Canadian dollars, with Canadian service, why would I go to the .fr site - especially when the site adjusts to the IP adress?
Just in case it was oversight, I wrote an email (in English) asking why this was the case. Twice. Over a year ago. I have yet to receive an answer. I also asked in person, when I needed customer service, to have someone who spoke French talk to me. It never happened.
then i agree that's very odd. Don't know whay. maybe there really is malice.
Quote
And, yes, this was but a single example. But when you multiply these examples in your personal life, you get frustrated - or you get the message that to get service in any kind, you should learn English. Which is what people here seem to be championing anyway - yet this is a different form of coercion. But since it is from the market, it is all alright.
To be clear i in no way feel a person from quebec should learn english to get serviced. i just find some aspects odd. the predominance things seems odd too me when equal should work fine. Getting upset with the word royal (and/or portraits of the head of state in government buildings). I just can't relate, and i suppose that's the biggest stumbling block.
and i still think 500,000 for a seven up is way too much :P
Quote from: Grallon on August 24, 2011, 01:45:55 PM
I must say this discussion about Quebecers and their collective motivations is surrealist when the input provided by actual Quebecers are dismissed as either irrelevant or wrong or malicious. But then again English Canadians often show extremely bad faith about this particular topic.
G.
and quebecers show bad faith to the anglo side. it's what makes canada great. one big disfunctional family :lol:
Quote from: Barrister on August 24, 2011, 01:40:37 PM
It's because it's not about having French available - it's about making French the predominate language in Quebec.
So in other words, I agree with you. It's not about utility. It is a statement of importance. But why is that such a terrible thing?
Because using legal coercion to ensure the dominance of a majority over a minority is not now, and has never been, a good thing. Even if the coercion at issue is hardly life or death stuff.
Unless you are Grallon, or Slargos. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on August 24, 2011, 01:50:21 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 24, 2011, 01:40:37 PM
It's because it's not about having French available - it's about making French the predominate language in Quebec.
So in other words, I agree with you. It's not about utility. It is a statement of importance. But why is that such a terrible thing?
Because using legal coercion to ensure the dominance of a majority over a minority is not now, and has never been, a good thing. Even if the coercion at issue is hardly life or death stuff.
Unless you are Grallon, or Slargos. ;)
But it's not dominance of French people over anglos. It's dominance of the French language over the English language.
Quote from: Barrister on August 24, 2011, 01:43:55 PM
Irritating, but what are you going to do?
Indeed - but that's the answer we receive for everything. What can you do?
And thus irritation grows, and is transformed into political action. What can you do? Well, in the case of Air Canada, you can sue. But, as we have seen, this is "unreasonable".
Quote from: Barrister on August 24, 2011, 01:35:35 PM
Quebec had the experience that even in francophone owned and operated business, most of the day to day language being spoken was English. They wanted, for a variety of reasons, to change it so that the predominate language of Quebec, both at home and in business, was in French.
I get that - but I guess I question the will to really want that to be the case, if you have to enshrine by law that business will be conducted in a particular language.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 24, 2011, 01:53:21 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 24, 2011, 01:43:55 PM
Irritating, but what are you going to do?
Indeed - but that's the answer we receive for everything. What can you do?
And thus irritation grows, and is transformed into political action. What can you do? Well, in the case of Air Canada, you can sue. But, as we have seen, this is "unreasonable".
Get over it?
And I don't mean that in the flippant way that such short phrasing suggests..
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2011, 01:56:01 PM
Get over it?
That is the apology of political apathy.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 24, 2011, 01:53:21 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 24, 2011, 01:43:55 PM
Irritating, but what are you going to do?
Indeed - but that's the answer we receive for everything. What can you do?
And thus irritation grows, and is transformed into political action. What can you do? Well, in the case of Air Canada, you can sue. But, as we have seen, this is "unreasonable".
But companies not willing to service your area is something that everyone, regardless of language, has experienced.
I lived in the north. Did you have any idea that large numbers of goods and servcies that were not available to me because of where I lived?
Or there is the border - lots of goods might be available for sale in the US, but not Canada. It took a year or two for the iPhone to be sold in this country for example. Apple just didn't see Canada as importtant enough.
As I said - irritating. But it's hardly discrimination.
What's the big deal? As a Quebecer you have to learn English. As a Swede you have to learn English. And Sweden isn't even part of an English-speaking country.
Quote from: Barrister on August 24, 2011, 01:52:16 PM
But it's not dominance of French people over anglos. It's dominance of the French language over the English language.
That's a distinction without a difference, as the minority of anglos in Quebec are identified by linguistic affiliation, not by genetics.
It's the equivalent of saying 'being legally required to wear a cross is not the dominance of Christians over Jews, Muslims and other people, it's the dominance of Christianity over other religions'.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 24, 2011, 01:53:21 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 24, 2011, 01:43:55 PM
Irritating, but what are you going to do?
Indeed - but that's the answer we receive for everything. What can you do?
And thus irritation grows, and is transformed into political action. What can you do? Well, in the case of Air Canada, you can sue. But, as we have seen, this is "unreasonable".
The roomfull of lawyers who commented on that lawsuit were not objecting to the notion of taking legal action, they were objecting to the notion of seeking a half-million in damages.
Alternatives were suggested (by me, among others): seeking a mandatory order.
Quote from: Barrister on August 24, 2011, 01:58:54 PM
But companies not willing to service your area is something that everyone, regardless of language, has experienced.
Indeed - but that's not quite the same - the Corel example I picked because they are located in
Ottawa - and I experienced it recently. I do not expect French service from foreign and distant companies - and yet, often I receive it (i.e., Nokia, Chase Manhattan). It is from companies doing business in Quebec (but often having marketing / customer services / direction elsewhere) - or sometimes, the Federal government - that I expect
a minimum and often do not even get that.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 24, 2011, 01:58:39 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2011, 01:56:01 PM
Get over it?
That is the apology of political apathy.
Actually it's more like giving into reality - with the reality, as unpalatable as it might be, that English is dominant and that setting up expectations that French will be as widely available only serves to breed discontentment. :(
Quote from: Malthus on August 24, 2011, 02:01:20 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 24, 2011, 01:52:16 PM
But it's not dominance of French people over anglos. It's dominance of the French language over the English language.
That's a distinction without a difference, as the minority of anglos in Quebec are identified by linguistic affiliation, not by genetics.
It's the equivalent of saying 'being legally required to wear a cross is not the dominance of Christians over Jews, Muslims and other people, it's the dominance of Christianity over other religions'.
But I'd be fine if a country (say a Euro country with an official religion) wanted to take steps to ensure the Christian identity of their nation, as long as minority religions were still free to practice their own religion. Now that probably doesn't include forcing people to wear crosses, but you get the idea.
Surely in this global era the notion that people want to take steps to preserve their cultural identity, whether it include language, religion, certain practices, etc. isn't that hard to believe?
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2011, 02:08:34 PM
Actually it's more like giving into reality - with the reality, as unpalatable as it might be, that English is dominant and that setting up expectations that French will be as widely available only serves to breed discontentment. :(
That's basically what I said: the apology of apathy - or resignation, if you will. This is the limited equivalent of saying "the world is unjust: deal with it".
Quote from: Barrister on August 24, 2011, 01:40:37 PM
It's because it's not about having French available - it's about making French the predominate language in Quebec.
So in other words, I agree with you. It's not about utility. It is a statement of importance. But why is that such a terrible thing?
Cause it's silly and counterproductive? Chauvinism is not a good reason to make laws. This thread started not about French language but because of a name change in the military. The Francophones seemed terribly distressed by this. The thread meandered around to frivolous lawsuits, paintings and sign laws but the root cause is the same, I think. I suspect the French speaking Canadians are deeply offended that the rest of Canada has not seen the innate superiority of the French language and refused to stop speaking the plebeian language of English. The words "culture" and "Hypocrites" have been thrown around here, but the hypocrites I see are the Francophones. They demand French have equal standing in the rest of Canada and are willing to sue for hefty amounts of money when services are not provided in French, but have no problem relegating other languages to second class status in Quebec. This suggest to me, that the calls for equal services is a fig leaf. There is no real interest in equality, just the promotion of French language in culture. When a Francophone goes on about Canada not having a culture of it's own, I think what he means is that it doesn't have a
French culture. An English based culture is apparently not a real culture.
Perhaps I'm wrong. I'm an outsider, who has no dog in this fight. I am unimpressed by people going on about the "Culture War" in the US. I see little reason to promote one culture over another. I don't care for efforts to promote the superiority of English or Christianity in the US (at least by the government), and I don't care for efforts to alter benign behavior in minorities or ever majorities. Hell, I have no problem making small and benign exceptions for people of other culture. I do oppose using the laws to enforce what ever cultural prejudices you happen to have. I see that as a poor use of the law.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 24, 2011, 02:04:49 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 24, 2011, 01:58:54 PM
But companies not willing to service your area is something that everyone, regardless of language, has experienced.
Indeed - but that's not quite the same - the Corel example I picked because they are located in Ottawa - and I experienced it recently. I do not expect French service from foreign and distant companies - and yet, often I receive it (i.e., Nokia, Chase Manhattan). It is from companies doing business in Quebec (but often having marketing / customer services / direction elsewhere) - or sometimes, the Federal government - that I expect a minimum and often do not even get that.
So it boils down to you sometimes get better service from successful multinationals, than you do from a failing company next door.
Again, this is not terribly unusual. I can recall how people moaned about how Walmart would kill all the small local businesses - yet people wound up shopping at Walmart because their price, selection and even level of service were far superior to the local business.
As mentioned, this is not unique to the French language or Quebec.
Quote from: Barrister on August 24, 2011, 02:09:55 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 24, 2011, 02:01:20 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 24, 2011, 01:52:16 PM
But it's not dominance of French people over anglos. It's dominance of the French language over the English language.
That's a distinction without a difference, as the minority of anglos in Quebec are identified by linguistic affiliation, not by genetics.
It's the equivalent of saying 'being legally required to wear a cross is not the dominance of Christians over Jews, Muslims and other people, it's the dominance of Christianity over other religions'.
But I'd be fine if a country (say a Euro country with an official religion) wanted to take steps to ensure the Christian identity of their nation, as long as minority religions were still free to practice their own religion. Now that probably doesn't include forcing people to wear crosses, but you get the idea.
Surely in this global era the notion that people want to take steps to preserve their cultural identity, whether it include language, religion, certain practices, etc. isn't that hard to believe?
Of course it isn't hard to believe. The world is full of Grallons, and Slargoses.
I do object - and I always will - to the notion that because the notion people wish to preserve their cultural, linguistic, religious, or racial majority by legally coercing others is understandable, it should therefore be approved of.
To my mind, a democratic government has no business supporting one group of citizens against another because of their identity. Because the tyranny of the majority is so easy to fall into, it should be resisted the more.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 24, 2011, 02:11:11 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2011, 02:08:34 PM
Actually it's more like giving into reality - with the reality, as unpalatable as it might be, that English is dominant and that setting up expectations that French will be as widely available only serves to breed discontentment. :(
That's basically what I said: the apology of apathy - or resignation, if you will. This is the limited equivalent of saying "the world is unjust: deal with it".
Except that I'm not championing political apathy - but really just saying that one should pick battles they can win. I'm not sure that it is a battle that can be won, if only because you're fighting against a horde of people who don't care about the issue.
I know that Canada is different from the US, but in my own life, while I appreciate signage/items/services that are both in Spanish and English - it doesn't occur to be to be annoyed when a spanish language option isn't available. I'm largely a monolingual English speaker and so on a day-to-day basis, I don't really feel any concern over situations where only the English is available. It simply doesn't occur to me as I'm not disadvantaged.
The closest example I could have any connection with - is when I went to the Prado and while a great many of the paintings had English text, there were many untranslated ones. Of course that was personally somewhat of a nuisance but the context is very different as I'd be outright boorish to expect Spain to put up signs in English - which differs greatly from the situation in Canada. :D
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 24, 2011, 02:11:11 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2011, 02:08:34 PM
Actually it's more like giving into reality - with the reality, as unpalatable as it might be, that English is dominant and that setting up expectations that French will be as widely available only serves to breed discontentment. :(
That's basically what I said: the apology of apathy - or resignation, if you will. This is the limited equivalent of saying "the world is unjust: deal with it".
What is your alternative? Btw, are all the First Nation languages as promoted as French? Can I get a Cree trial anywhere in Canada? Can I sue half a million bucks if I'm not served in Cree?
Quote from: Malthus on August 24, 2011, 02:17:11 PM
Of course it isn't hard to believe. The world is full of Grallons, and Slargoses.
I do object - and I always will - to the notion that because the notion people wish to preserve their cultural, linguistic, religious, or racial majority by legally coercing others is understandable, it should therefore be approved of.
To my mind, a democratic government has no business supporting one group of citizens against another because of their identity. Because the tyranny of the majority is so easy to fall into, it should be resisted the more.
One hardly needs to agree with Grallon or Slargos to believe that unique local cultures, traditions, and yes languages, help make the world a more interesting place and deserve to be protected.
I mean I suppose it may be inevitable that one day we'll all be eating identical Big Macs, listening to intechangeable pop music, speaking Anglo-Cantonese, but that doesn't mean we should welcome it.
You do know that our Canadian government goes to great lengths to try and promote and protect a unique Canadian identity? Are you opposed to that?
And to bring it full circle, the reason I can understand what our Quebecois friends are going through is the same reason I loved the opening post - I saw it as an effort to promote that unique Canadian identity to bring back the RCAF and RCN, and understand why Quebec wants to promote their own sense of identity.
Quote from: Barrister on August 24, 2011, 02:24:24 PM
I mean I suppose it may be inevitable that one day we'll all be eating identical Big Macs, listening to intechangeable pop music, speaking Anglo-Cantonese, but that doesn't mean we should welcome it.
I like how whenever anyone chooses to attack the side effects of globalization, they always paint it with the lowest common denominator of culture items.
Yes, we'll be reduced to insipid pop music and big macs. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Razgovory on August 24, 2011, 01:32:09 PM
The Academie is tasked with the preservation of purity of the French language. This implies a superior position of French compared to other languages which would presumably make French impure. The motive seems very similar, to keep the French language in a state of superiority to other languages.
Incidentally, you made an argument for not preserving French in Canada, as you pointed out it is "Historically destructive".
Indeed. If Canada was a 19th century European nation state trying to develop itself I would think stamping out French would be a good idea. Not doing so would probably lead to war and strife. And, to some extent, this was tried in Canada (which seems to be a source of Quebec's language paranoia). But this is the 21st century and Canada is not a European style nation state.
Yes France has a 17th century institution whose job it is to regulate the French language...heck to a large extent it created the French language. It was useful in creating modern France as a unified state. It is a tad conservative and full of itself. I am not sure how this compares to Quebec's own feelings.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 24, 2011, 02:18:55 PM
Btw, are all the First Nation languages as promoted as French? Can I get a Cree trial anywhere in Canada? Can I sue half a million bucks if I'm not served in Cree?
Most native languages are virtually dead, spoken by only a few dozen elders. :(
Cree is one of the few that has much of a chance of surviving. In part it is merely because Cree was one of the largest single FN languages it has the largest number of speakers, so it might yet survive. The use of Cree may be promoted by individual FN governments, but not by the Federal or Provincial governments.
There is one interesting exception though - Inuktitut. Inuktitut is the official language of Nunavut, and its use is heavily promoted. Sadly there are not enough (or hardly any) Inuktitut speaking lawyers or judges so trials are conducted in English - but there is simultaneous English-Inuktitut translation in every courtroom.
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2011, 02:28:41 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 24, 2011, 02:24:24 PM
I mean I suppose it may be inevitable that one day we'll all be eating identical Big Macs, listening to intechangeable pop music, speaking Anglo-Cantonese, but that doesn't mean we should welcome it.
I like how whenever anyone chooses to attack the side effects of globalization, they always paint it with the lowest common denominator of culture items.
Yes, we'll be reduced to insipid pop music and big macs. :rolleyes:
Well, won't we?
I don't see a lot to suggest otherwise. It's the lowest common denomitaor pop culture that is spreading across the globe.
Quote from: Malthus on August 24, 2011, 02:17:11 PM
To my mind, a democratic government has no business supporting one group of citizens against another because of their identity. Because the tyranny of the majority is so easy to fall into, it should be resisted the more.
like, oh say, forbidding publicly french schools? French education in Manitoba is available only since the late 90s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manitoba_Schools_Question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manitoba_Schools_Question)
Easy then to say there's not enough French population to justify the existence of French services.
Also very easy to talk about coercition when there's a cultural firewall around Canada.
I can't just subscribe to HBO, since it's an American channel. I need to subscribe to most channels available first. Same goes with
à la carte channels, i need an equivalent number of canadian channels before subscribing to american channels.
Even though Canadian networks mostly air american content.
I can't watch the Superbowl with the original ads, it's forbidden to me. Talk about coercition! ;)
Back in the 50s, no one could get a decent job if not speaking english. Even today, outside of Quebec, preference is given to an incompetent english speaker rather than a competent French Canadian (see the TSX group debacle). When a Québécois was near buying the Canadian Pacific, the Federal government intervene to put a stop to it. But that's not coercition...
Bottom line: when English Canada feels threatened of something, they react no different than Quebec did to protect its culture.
Quote from: Barrister on August 24, 2011, 02:31:09 PM
Well, won't we?
I don't see a lot to suggest otherwise. It's the lowest common denomitaor pop culture that is spreading across the globe.
Well it is the largest market :P
Quote from: viper37 on August 24, 2011, 02:31:40 PM
I can't watch the Superball with the original ads, it's forbidden to me. Talk about coercition! ;)
Wow...what an interesting mistake. Or was that intentional?
Quote from: Barrister on August 24, 2011, 02:24:24 PM
One hardly needs to agree with Grallon or Slargos to believe that unique local cultures, traditions, and yes languages, help make the world a more interesting place and deserve to be protected.
I mean I suppose it may be inevitable that one day we'll all be eating identical Big Macs, listening to intechangeable pop music, speaking Anglo-Cantonese, but that doesn't mean we should welcome it.
You do know that our Canadian government goes to great lengths to try and promote and protect a unique Canadian identity? Are you opposed to that?
And to bring it full circle, the reason I can understand what our Quebecois friends are going through is the same reason I loved the opening post - I saw it as an effort to promote that unique Canadian identity to bring back the RCAF and RCN, and understand why Quebec wants to promote their own sense of identity.
The choice of bringing back the "royal" doesn't impose any loss of freedom on individuals.
You say it is a good thing to have diversity and all that. I agree.
What I disagree with is the choice of
method. I oppose using coercive means to support the majority over a minority in the name of "promoting a unique identity". That doesn't mean that I don't like the notion of supporting a unique identity.
The glorious ends do not justify the annoying and petty means.
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2011, 02:33:24 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 24, 2011, 02:31:40 PM
I can't watch the Superball with the original ads, it's forbidden to me. Talk about coercition! ;)
Wow...what an interesting mistake. Or was that intentional?
for some reason, I always spell it "ball" instead of "bowl" even if I know it's wrong. Weird habit, don't know where I picked that up.
Quote from: viper37 on August 24, 2011, 02:38:53 PM
for some reason, I always spell it "ball" instead of "bowl" even if I know it's wrong. Weird habit, don't know where I picked that up.
Well the name was coined by the owner of the Kansas City Chiefs when, according to legend, he found his kids playing with a toy called 'superball'. Yes the 'superball' in question is in the NFL Hall of Fame.
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2011, 02:28:41 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 24, 2011, 02:24:24 PM
I mean I suppose it may be inevitable that one day we'll all be eating identical Big Macs, listening to intechangeable pop music, speaking Anglo-Cantonese, but that doesn't mean we should welcome it.
I like how whenever anyone chooses to attack the side effects of globalization, they always paint it with the lowest common denominator of culture items.
Yes, we'll be reduced to insipid pop music and big macs. :rolleyes:
Indeed, like today there is LESS culturally interesting food and music available than before?
Oh wait...
Quote from: Malthus on August 24, 2011, 02:38:11 PM
What I disagree with is the choice of method. I oppose using coercive means to support the majority over a minority in the name of "promoting a unique identity". That doesn't mean that I don't like the notion of supporting a unique identity.
so you have absolutely no problem with public school serving halal food exclusively and having prayers with menstruated women sitting at the back of the room? Because otherwise, it would be trempling on the rights on the minority. Nor should you be opposed to female genital mutilation, it's part of their minority culture, certainly the majority can't tremple on their rights?
You should try visiting Quebec, I mean, the cities like Montreal, Sherbooke, Quebec city, not the north where only a few people live.
You could see by yourself if the English Quebecers are coerced and live miserable life.
Quote from: viper37 on August 24, 2011, 02:31:40 PM
like, oh say, forbidding publicly french schools? French education in Manitoba is available only since the late 90s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manitoba_Schools_Question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manitoba_Schools_Question)
Easy then to say there's not enough French population to justify the existence of French services.
Again, you Wiki article references only stuff that happened in the 19th century. Certainly, the French-speaking inhabitants of Manitoba were treated shabbily by the Anglo authorities ... but guess what? Most anglo-speaking inhabitants of the RoC today aren't even
descendants of those dastardly Anglos!
QuoteAlso very easy to talk about coercition when there's a cultural firewall around Canada.
I can't just subscribe to HBO, since it's an American channel. I need to subscribe to most channels available first. Same goes with à la carte channels, i need an equivalent number of canadian channels before subscribing to american channels.
Even though Canadian networks mostly air american content.
I can't watch the Superbowl with the original ads, it's forbidden to me. Talk about coercition! ;)
Back in the 50s, no one could get a decent job if not speaking english. Even today, outside of Quebec, preference is given to an incompetent english speaker rather than a competent French Canadian (see the TSX group debacle). When a Québécois was near buying the Canadian Pacific, the Federal government intervene to put a stop to it. But that's not coercition...
Bottom line: when English Canada feels threatened of something, they react no different than Quebec did to protect its culture.
The difference is that nationalism over matters like commercials etc. isn't putting down one group of Canadians in favour of another. Not that I agree with it, but it is not at all the same thing.
Quote from: Berkut on August 24, 2011, 02:43:17 PM
Indeed, like today there is LESS culturally interesting food and music available than before?
Oh wait...
Well...sorta. But before you had to travel all around the world to find it. Today generic versions of it get spread everywhere. The eventual result will be a unified world culture. This has lots of pluses and minuses.
Quote from: Malthus on August 24, 2011, 02:45:07 PM
Most anglo-speaking inhabitants of the RoC today
Regia Canadiorum?
Quote from: viper37 on August 24, 2011, 02:44:42 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 24, 2011, 02:38:11 PM
What I disagree with is the choice of method. I oppose using coercive means to support the majority over a minority in the name of "promoting a unique identity". That doesn't mean that I don't like the notion of supporting a unique identity.
so you have absolutely no problem with public school serving halal food exclusively and having prayers with menstruated women sitting at the back of the room? Because otherwise, it would be trempling on the rights on the minority. Nor should you be opposed to female genital mutilation, it's part of their minority culture, certainly the majority can't tremple on their rights?
Are you attempting to win the Marty prize for analogy use? ;)
In point of fact, I regularly oppose within-Ontario hysteria over Muslim institutions (for example, that whole silliness over Sharia arbitration).
QuoteYou should try visiting Quebec, I mean, the cities like Montreal, Sherbooke, Quebec city, not the north where only a few people live.
You could see by yourself if the English Quebecers are coerced and live miserable life.
Of course anglos don't live a "coerced ... miserable life". We are talking about disapproval over specific legal measures. There is no need to exaggerate or get hysterical.
And I've been to Montreal and Quebec City many times.
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2011, 02:45:21 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 24, 2011, 02:43:17 PM
Indeed, like today there is LESS culturally interesting food and music available than before?
Oh wait...
Well...sorta. But before you had to travel all around the world to find it.
And now I do not, and this is a bad thing? How?
Notice that the spread of McDonalds has not crushed out other sources of food. Despite BBs apparent confusion of movies wth reality, it really isn't all Taco Bell, nor does it appear to even be moving in that direction.
There are noticeable cultural differences between Rochester NY and Buffalo NY. The idea that proximity and technology are going to inevitably wash out all cultural differences is unsupported.
No, what does happen (and has always happened) is that culutres shift and change as they are influenced by a variety of other forces, both internal and external. And at all times, there is a bunch of people bemoaning the destruction of what was, and thinking that everything was ever so much better before that nasty change came along and made things different.
But in most cases, things are actually better after the change than before, because change is typically driven by the wants and needs of people. But the "conservatives" never see that, they just see nasty change and create all these demons about how horrible it will be if the Francophones cannot speak as much French as they like, or if the gays are allowed to marry, or whatever.
What is funny is seeing people like grallon turn into ardent conservitards as soon as it is their pet issue that is changing. Then they suddenly become all in favor of the state imposing THEIR demands on others. Like I've always said, most people only pay lip service to liberalism or the concept of freedom and liberty. They are all for it as long as it doesn't actually apply to issues they care about.
Quote from: Berkut on August 24, 2011, 11:37:34 AM
Can't do that in Quebec, the French has to be "predominant". So unless you want the French to be predominant everywhere you do business, you MUST have separate documentation, advertising, etc., etc.
In fairness, some Georgia localities tried to do this sort of thing with English - banning any sign that did not have an English translation predominating.
California actually did pass some similar laws, and New York City is apparently in the same sort of process.
http://articles.boston.com/2011-07-04/business/29736688_1_signs-english-foreign-language
https://illinois.edu/db/view/25/55078
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2011, 02:45:21 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 24, 2011, 02:43:17 PM
Indeed, like today there is LESS culturally interesting food and music available than before?
Oh wait...
Well...sorta. But before you had to travel all around the world to find it. Today generic versions of it get spread everywhere. The eventual result will be a unified world culture. This has lots of pluses and minuses.
That is certainly not my experience. I am not sure what you mean by "generic versions". I can get many wines I could not previously purchase. I can get many foods I could not previously purchase. I certainly have a better diet then my parents had simply because I can eat fresh fruits and vegetables all year round.
As a result our local wineries and producers have had to up their game with quite good results. I am trying to think of the downside to all of this.
Quote from: Berkut on August 24, 2011, 02:54:01 PM
And now I do not, and this is a bad thing? How?
I don't think it is a good thing or a bad thing. It is just: a thing. Times are changing.
QuoteThe idea that proximity and technology are going to inevitably wash out all cultural differences is unsupported.
Nonsense. We are all exposed to the same media and we see the same stuff on the internet and we are increasingly buying the same stuff from the same global corps. Now it will not happen anytime soon, it will happen gradually over time, but I think it is happening. How could it not?
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 24, 2011, 02:58:02 PM
That is certainly not my experience. I am not sure what you mean by "generic versions".
'Chinese food' 'Mexican Food' 'Indian Food'.
I bet there are dramatic regional variations of these but there is one specific version that gets spread out over the world.
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2011, 02:58:20 PM
Nonsense. We are all exposed to the same media and we see the same stuff on the internet and we are increasingly buying the same stuff from the same global corps. Now it will not happen anytime soon, it will happen gradually over time, but I think it is happening. How could it not?
Because unless you are positing some Star Trek like Federation - we will still have different lived experiences which will in turn affect local culture.
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2011, 02:59:21 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 24, 2011, 02:58:02 PM
That is certainly not my experience. I am not sure what you mean by "generic versions".
'Chinese food' 'Mexican Food' 'Indian Food'.
I bet there are dramatic regional variations of these but there is one specific version that gets spread out over the world.
I still dont know what you mean. In my neighourhood alone I can go to two different Chinese Restaurants that cook in completely different styles. I have a choice of three different sushi restraurants with similar results. Within walking distance of my office I have a choice of two quite distinct Indian restaurants. I wont bore you with the large choice of other restaurants I have.
The only thing I would describe as generic are the fast food restaurants - but I dont eat there. So, as I said. Not my experience.
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2011, 03:01:51 PM
Because unless you are positing some Star Trek like Federation - we will still have different lived experiences which will in turn affect local culture.
Maybe...what sort of experiences do you mean?
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2011, 03:04:58 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2011, 03:01:51 PM
Because unless you are positing some Star Trek like Federation - we will still have different lived experiences which will in turn affect local culture.
Maybe...what sort of experiences do you mean?
Really? Even I got that and I am an old stick in the mud.
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2011, 03:04:58 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2011, 03:01:51 PM
Because unless you are positing some Star Trek like Federation - we will still have different lived experiences which will in turn affect local culture.
Maybe...what sort of experiences do you mean?
Income
Socialization
Education
Sexual orientation
Race
Gender
Climate
Local flora & fauna
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 24, 2011, 03:02:51 PM
[I still dont know what you mean. In my neighourhood alone I can go to two different Chinese Restaurants that cook in completely different styles. I have a choice of three different sushi restraurants with similar results. Within walking distance of my office I have a choice of two quite distinct Indian restaurants. I wont bore you with the large choice of other restaurants I have.
The only thing I would describe as generic are the fast food restaurants - but I dont eat there. So, as I said. Not my experience.
I did not say that was a reality now. I was only getting at that the cultural transferrance across the globe is creating a global culture. But it will be a natural process and slow.
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2011, 03:09:25 PM
I did not say that was a reality now. I was only getting at that the cultural transferrance across the globe is creating a global culture. But it will be a natural process and slow.
But how and why would that erase subcultures?
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2011, 03:07:00 PM
Income
Socialization
Education
Sexual orientation
Race
Gender
Climate
Local flora & fauna
I guess I fail to see how those things do not already vary inside any single culture.
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2011, 02:58:20 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 24, 2011, 02:54:01 PM
And now I do not, and this is a bad thing? How?
I don't think it is a good thing or a bad thing. It is just: a thing. Times are changing.
QuoteThe idea that proximity and technology are going to inevitably wash out all cultural differences is unsupported.
Nonsense. We are all exposed to the same media and we see the same stuff on the internet and we are increasingly buying the same stuff from the same global corps. Now it will not happen anytime soon, it will happen gradually over time, but I think it is happening. How could it not?
The impact of the 'net hasn't really been homogenization. Rather, increased communications appears to allow for a great diversity of things to survive, because people who have an otherwise-obscure taste can now group together more easily.
Not that this is always a *good* thing - think "Rule 34". Also, Languish. :D
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2011, 03:10:31 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2011, 03:07:00 PM
Income
Socialization
Education
Sexual orientation
Race
Gender
Climate
Local flora & fauna
I guess I fail to see how those things do not already vary inside any single culture.
They do - which is my point. A global monoculture is really just a boogeyman as there will always be so many subcultures contained within.
Quote from: viper37 on August 24, 2011, 02:44:42 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 24, 2011, 02:38:11 PM
What I disagree with is the choice of method. I oppose using coercive means to support the majority over a minority in the name of "promoting a unique identity". That doesn't mean that I don't like the notion of supporting a unique identity.
so you have absolutely no problem with public school serving halal food exclusively and having prayers with menstruated women sitting at the back of the room? Because otherwise, it would be trempling on the rights on the minority. Nor should you be opposed to female genital mutilation, it's part of their minority culture, certainly the majority can't tremple on their rights?
you comparing clitorictomies with french free signs? lol
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2011, 03:10:04 PM
But how and why would that erase subcultures?
Alright I probably should not have said 'all cultural differences'.
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2011, 03:09:25 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 24, 2011, 03:02:51 PM
[I still dont know what you mean. In my neighourhood alone I can go to two different Chinese Restaurants that cook in completely different styles. I have a choice of three different sushi restraurants with similar results. Within walking distance of my office I have a choice of two quite distinct Indian restaurants. I wont bore you with the large choice of other restaurants I have.
The only thing I would describe as generic are the fast food restaurants - but I dont eat there. So, as I said. Not my experience.
I did not say that was a reality now. I was only getting at that the cultural transferrance across the globe is creating a global culture. But it will be a natural process and slow.
I will just echo what Malthus and Garbon have already said. I do not understand how this process is in anyway "natural". In my experience globalization has increased the availablility of specialty products. If anything my life before globalization was a lot more homogenous.
Maybe another way to look at it is the "global culture" of which you speak is a culture in which we can all have access to what we like without being restricted by the fact that the good or service is being provided a great distrance away. Since we all have difference likes how could this create a generic future?
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2011, 03:12:23 PM
They do - which is my point. A global monoculture is really just a boogeyman as there will always be so many subcultures contained within.
Boogeyman?
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 24, 2011, 03:21:13 PM
Maybe another way to look at it is the "global culture" of which you speak is a culture in which we can all have access to what we like without being restricted by the fact that the good or service is being provided a great distrance away. Since we all have difference likes how could this create a generic future?
Is Canada generic just because there exists a 'Canadian' culture? I did not mean to imply this was some sort of horrible thing. Why is it bad we would have a global cultural reference? I mean yes things would be different and better in some ways and worse in others but that is how things go. Cultures change to reflect new realities. Having globalized communications and so forth will create something new. To me this points to a new global culture not that we all become identical members of the collective.
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2011, 03:22:43 PM
Is Canada generic just because there exists a 'Canadian' culture? I did not mean to imply this was some sort of horrible thing. Why is it bad we would have a global cultural reference?
I dont understand your question. I am not sure such a thing as "Canadian" culture exists. I think there is a Canadian identity but the culture of Canada is very diverse and at the very least varies among regions. Just as it does in the US.
And yes, I would hate to live in a world that had a monolithic culture.
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2011, 02:59:21 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 24, 2011, 02:58:02 PM
That is certainly not my experience. I am not sure what you mean by "generic versions".
'Chinese food' 'Mexican Food' 'Indian Food'.
I bet there are dramatic regional variations of these but there is one specific version that gets spread out over the world.
Having Chinese food in Portugal was a weird experience. it looked the same as our fake stuff but was way saltier. I spoke to the owner (friend of my uncle) and he said that when he lived in Canada he had a restaurant here and had to make the food sweeter. When he moved to Portugal he had to make the food saltier (pork chops really like their salt). Just a weird thing you never think about. Regional preferences are a funny thing.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 24, 2011, 03:25:03 PM
I dont understand your question. I am not sure such a thing as "Canadian" culture exists. I think there is a Canadian identity but the culture of Canada is very diverse and at the very least varies among regions. Just as it does in the US.
And yes, I would hate to live in a world that had a monolithic culture.
Right and it would stay diverse to that extent. But everybody in the US has common cultural references and it will be like that on a global level. People will be able to move anywhere and be able to function but there will be little differences. Heck you already get a little of this feel moving between first world nations.
Why wouldn't it be like that with the mobility of people, ideas, and entertainment and so forth?
What our non Canadian readers should understand is that no matter the method used, hysteria will always ensue in Canada when Quebec asserts its collective identity. Why? For the very simple reason that it implies the rejection, wholly or in part, of the Canadian 'national' narrative. And I've postulated many times that Canada is built on the denial of its true nature - which is being a bi-national entity.
And we all know that so long as something is denied there can be no real/objective appraisal of a given situation - nor can actual solutions be put into effect.
G.
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2011, 03:28:01 PM
Right and it would stay diverse to that extent. But everybody in the US has common cultural references and it will be like that on a global level. People will be able to move anywhere and be able to function but there will be little differences. Heck you already get a little of this feel moving between first world nations.
A culture is not a series of exclusionary frontiers. It is a pattern of connecting links. No one here is arguing for the creation of cultural reserves, but for the capacity to shape the patterns and identify crucial knots. And language is one prime connector; I don't see why the market, or individual rights, needs to be the only legitimate ones.
Maybe it's because I'm from a bilingual family (not French ) I never saw a distinction between two languages one country.
Quote from: Grallon on August 24, 2011, 03:29:32 PM
What our non Canadian readers should understand is that no matter the method used, hysteria will always ensue in Canada when Quebec asserts its collective identity. Why? For the very simple reason that it implies the rejection, wholly or in part, of the Canadian 'national' narrative. And I've postulated many times that Canada is built on the denial of its true nature - which is being a bi-national entity.
And we all know that so long as something is denied there can be no real/objective appraisal of a given situation - nor can actual solutions be put into effect.
G.
I am pretty sure Oex and viper already undertand your point. The thing you dont seem to get is the point Malthus is making that Quebec includes people who are not French speakers. You are as guilty of creating a fiction as anyone you have acccused in this thread.
The only logical way out for you is to assert that only the Majority French speakers are Quebecers which makes Malthus' argument and concern much more compelling.
You and Oex provide a good counterbalance. Whenever Oex is at his most reasonable you always come around to voice the most extreme version of your political movement.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 24, 2011, 03:34:42 PM
A culture is not a series of exclusionary frontiers. It is a pattern of connecting links. No one here is arguing for the creation of cultural reserves, but for the capacity to shape the patterns and identify crucial knots. And language is one prime connector; I don't see why the market, or individual rights, needs to be the only legitimate ones.
That was nicely put.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 24, 2011, 03:34:42 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2011, 03:28:01 PM
Right and it would stay diverse to that extent. But everybody in the US has common cultural references and it will be like that on a global level. People will be able to move anywhere and be able to function but there will be little differences. Heck you already get a little of this feel moving between first world nations.
A culture is not a series of exclusionary frontiers. It is a pattern of connecting links. No one here is arguing for the creation of cultural reserves, but for the capacity to shape the patterns and identify crucial knots. And language is one prime connector; I don't see why the market, or individual rights, needs to be the only legitimate ones.
I can understand your point, and largely agree with it.
I just personally do not think that "individual rights" are unimportant enough that they should be put aside in what looks to me like a futile effort to hold onto something that is doomed by the very culture it is supposed to be protecting.
Quote from: HVC on August 24, 2011, 03:34:43 PM
Maybe it's because I'm from a bilingual family (not French ) I never saw a distinction between two languages one country.
the portuguese identity is diffused through Canada. You haven't systematically been abused since 1763 (Royal Proclamation, Act of Union, Confederation, Louis Riel, Manitoba, New Brunswick and Ontario as english only provinces for the first 100years or so of the country, etc,). All the stuff done to preserve the pure British identity of the country. Renaming the army is just one step back toward this identity: the British colonial identity that Canada never really left.
I suspect the situation of the Portuguese people would be different if they were a province of Spain. Given the few Portuguese I know don't seem to have any lost love for Spaniards, things could be different after 250 years living under their rule and being treated like a spoiled child because you insist on speaking your language and asking for respect.
Quote from: Berkut on August 24, 2011, 03:43:27 PM
I just personally do not think that "individual rights" are unimportant enough that they should be put aside in what looks to me like a futile effort to hold onto something that is doomed by the very culture it is supposed to be protecting.
like the Canadian identity wich is simply Americans with a Royal fetish?
Quote from: Berkut on August 24, 2011, 03:43:27 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 24, 2011, 03:34:42 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2011, 03:28:01 PM
Right and it would stay diverse to that extent. But everybody in the US has common cultural references and it will be like that on a global level. People will be able to move anywhere and be able to function but there will be little differences. Heck you already get a little of this feel moving between first world nations.
A culture is not a series of exclusionary frontiers. It is a pattern of connecting links. No one here is arguing for the creation of cultural reserves, but for the capacity to shape the patterns and identify crucial knots. And language is one prime connector; I don't see why the market, or individual rights, needs to be the only legitimate ones.
I can understand your point, and largely agree with it.
I just personally do not think that "individual rights" are unimportant enough that they should be put aside in what looks to me like a futile effort to hold onto something that is doomed by the very culture it is supposed to be protecting.
That's only if you assume it is in fact futile.
From what I understand the state of the French language in Quebec has improved in leaps and bounds since the 70s. French is less in danger now than it was before.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 24, 2011, 03:35:58 PM
...
The only logical way out for you is to assert that only the Majority French speakers are Quebecers which makes Malthus' argument and concern much more compelling.
...
It all depends on how you define what it is to be (insert national group of choice). Some postulate a nation is nothing more than an aggregate of individuals living under a specific jurisdiction. But a 'true' nation is more than that. Malthus would call it tribalism. It doesn't matter. My point is that if you want to be a called/recognized/acknowledged as a 'national' - you have to adapt yourself to the mores, customs and norms defined/established/proclaimed by the majority. Some people call that 'tyranny' - I call it common sense. Otherwise you get a society that isn't organic - a car holding only by its coat of paint. Bill 101 is merely one expression of this desire to maintain social cohesion.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on August 24, 2011, 03:48:29 PM
My point is that if you want to be a called/recognized/acknowledged as a 'national' - you have to adapt yourself to the mores, customs and norms defined/established/proclaimed by the majority. Some people call that 'tyranny' - I call it common sense.
G.
I understood that to be your point. And frankly if that is the view of all Separatists then you can count me a firm adversary of your cause as it raises the red flags Malthus has already mentioned. But I am not entirely sure your view is the view of all Separatists.
Quote from: Barrister on August 24, 2011, 02:24:24 PM
One hardly needs to agree with Grallon or Slargos to believe that unique local cultures, traditions, and yes languages, help make the world a more interesting place and deserve to be protected.
I mean I suppose it may be inevitable that one day we'll all be eating identical Big Macs, listening to intechangeable pop music, speaking Anglo-Cantonese, but that doesn't mean we should welcome it.
You do know that our Canadian government goes to great lengths to try and promote and protect a unique Canadian identity? Are you opposed to that?
And to bring it full circle, the reason I can understand what our Quebecois friends are going through is the same reason I loved the opening post - I saw it as an effort to promote that unique Canadian identity to bring back the RCAF and RCN, and understand why Quebec wants to promote their own sense of identity.
The problem I see is there is little give and take. The Anglophones seem to have accepted the Francophones demands and have attempted to be inclusive (not always successfully). The French speakers on the other hand, have little interest in protecting minority groups in Quebec. Grallon has no desire to accommodate Muslims, and I doubt Cantonese is a protected language in Quebec. There seems to a demand that immigrants drop their cultural identity as quickly as possible and become part of Quebec's French culture while at the same time proudly resisting the anglo mono-culture. You can't have it both ways. The situation is similar in France so I think this is French Culture thing.
I wonder if the situation was reversed, if the Francophones we the majority in Canada and the Anglo-phones were the minority would they be so interested in preserving the quaint language and customs of their English speaking cousins?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 24, 2011, 03:59:02 PM
The situation is similar in France so I think this is French Culture thing.
No it isn't and no it's not.
Quote from: viper37 on August 24, 2011, 03:43:35 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 24, 2011, 03:34:43 PM
Maybe it's because I'm from a bilingual family (not French ) I never saw a distinction between two languages one country.
the portuguese identity is diffused through Canada. You haven't systematically been abused since 1763 (Royal Proclamation, Act of Union, Confederation, Louis Riel, Manitoba, New Brunswick and Ontario as english only provinces for the first 100years or so of the country, etc,). All the stuff done to preserve the pure British identity of the country. Renaming the army is just one step back toward this identity: the British colonial identity that Canada never really left.
I suspect the situation of the Portuguese people would be different if they were a province of Spain. Given the few Portuguese I know don't seem to have any lost love for Spaniards, things could be different after 250 years living under their rule and being treated like a spoiled child because you insist on speaking your language and asking for respect.
You are older then I thought.
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2011, 04:02:38 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 24, 2011, 03:59:02 PM
The situation is similar in France so I think this is French Culture thing.
No it isn't and no it's not.
Oh? The French seem to take pride in resisting Anglo inclusions in their vocabulary. Things like the headscarf ban and such seems to suggest they very interested in promoting "Frenchness".
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 24, 2011, 03:53:48 PM
I understood that to be your point. And frankly if that is the view of all Separatists then you can count me a firm adversary of your cause as it raises the red flags Malthus has already mentioned. But I am not entirely sure your view is the view of all Separatists.
No indeed not. Many are holding to the fiction that defining nationalism as a civic-only movement will bolster support for independence. It won't since there's no point leaving a polity based on those principles only to rebuild another one, at great costs, as a smaller and poorer version of the first.
However if nationalism means the protection and promotion of a specific ethnocultural identity this does not necessarily imply that minorities within the larger society are systematically oppressed. Case in point, despite all their bitching and moaning, Anglo-Quebecers are still alive and well as a community. But they represent a special case, since they are, as a minority, the representatives of a continental super majority.
G.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 24, 2011, 04:04:54 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2011, 04:02:38 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 24, 2011, 03:59:02 PM
The situation is similar in France so I think this is French Culture thing.
No it isn't and no it's not.
Oh? The French seem to take pride in resisting Anglo inclusions in their vocabulary. Things like the headscarf ban and such seems to suggest they very interested in promoting "Frenchness".
Didnt the headscraf ban have to do with playing to the Slargo type muslim haters within the French electorate? ie playing to racism against muslims rather than playing up "frenchness". After all wearing a scarf can be very French...
Quote from: Grallon on August 24, 2011, 04:06:35 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 24, 2011, 03:53:48 PM
I understood that to be your point. And frankly if that is the view of all Separatists then you can count me a firm adversary of your cause as it raises the red flags Malthus has already mentioned. But I am not entirely sure your view is the view of all Separatists.
No indeed not. Many are holding to the fiction that defining nationalism as a civic-only movement will bolster support for independence. It won't since there's no point leaving a polity based on those principles only to rebuild another one, at great costs, as a smaller and poorer version of the first.
However if nationalism means the protection and promotion of a specific ethnocultural identity this does not necessarily imply that minorities within the larger society are systematically oppressed. Case in point, despite all their bitching and moaning, Anglo-Quebecers are still alive and well as a community. But they represent a special case, since they are, as a minority, the representatives of a continental super majority.
G.
If you had your way, there would be systematic oppression of certain groups, correct? Or at least their expulsion.
Quote from: Grallon on August 24, 2011, 04:06:35 PM
No indeed not. Many are holding to the fiction that defining nationalism as a civic-only movement will bolster support for independence. It won't since there's no point leaving a polity based on those principles only to rebuild another one, at great costs, as a smaller and poorer version of the first.
However if nationalism means the protection and promotion of a specific ethnocultural identity this does not necessarily imply that minorities within the larger society are systematically oppressed. Case in point, despite all their bitching and moaning, Anglo-Quebecers are still alive and well as a community. But they represent a special case, since they are, as a minority, the representatives of a continental super majority.
G.
One wonders though, if you got your way (not the separatists but your particular brand of separatism) whether minorities would continue to prosper.
edit: Raz made the same point and was more to the point.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 24, 2011, 04:07:38 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 24, 2011, 04:04:54 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2011, 04:02:38 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 24, 2011, 03:59:02 PM
The situation is similar in France so I think this is French Culture thing.
No it isn't and no it's not.
Oh? The French seem to take pride in resisting Anglo inclusions in their vocabulary. Things like the headscarf ban and such seems to suggest they very interested in promoting "Frenchness".
Didnt the headscraf ban have to do with playing to the Slargo type muslim haters within the French electorate? ie playing to racism against muslims rather than playing up "frenchness". After all wearing a scarf can be very French...
One of their arguments was that it was impeding women from joining the rest of French society. This may or may not be true, but banning it for that reason is not something you do to promote diversity. Quite the opposite.
After seeing the movie I posted about in the other thread, I cant help but imagine a Grallonian Quebec where a White Rose student movement is formed to circulate flyers advocating for the right to express oneself in English while being hounded and rounded up by the Grallonite Police who are intent on removing such a scourge from society.
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2011, 03:21:56 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2011, 03:12:23 PM
They do - which is my point. A global monoculture is really just a boogeyman as there will always be so many subcultures contained within.
Boogeyman?
:P
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 24, 2011, 04:17:41 PM
After seeing the movie I posted about in the other thread, I cant help but imagine a Grallonian Quebec where a White Rose student movement is formed to circulate flyers advocating for the right to express oneself in English while being hounded and rounded up by the Grallonite Police who are intent on removing such a scourge from society.
Grallon is a fun target, but you and I know he is hardly representative of separatists.
Quote from: viper37 on August 24, 2011, 03:43:35 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 24, 2011, 03:34:43 PM
Maybe it's because I'm from a bilingual family (not French ) I never saw a distinction between two languages one country.
the portuguese identity is diffused through Canada. You haven't systematically been abused since 1763 (Royal Proclamation, Act of Union, Confederation, Louis Riel, Manitoba, New Brunswick and Ontario as english only provinces for the first 100years or so of the country, etc,). All the stuff done to preserve the pure British identity of the country. Renaming the army is just one step back toward this identity: the British colonial identity that Canada never really left.
I suspect the situation of the Portuguese people would be different if they were a province of Spain. Given the few Portuguese I know don't seem to have any lost love for Spaniards, things could be different after 250 years living under their rule and being treated like a spoiled child because you insist on speaking your language and asking for respect.
You've been systematically abused since 1763? :yeahright:
Quote from: Barrister on August 24, 2011, 04:19:48 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 24, 2011, 04:17:41 PM
After seeing the movie I posted about in the other thread, I cant help but imagine a Grallonian Quebec where a White Rose student movement is formed to circulate flyers advocating for the right to express oneself in English while being hounded and rounded up by the Grallonite Police who are intent on removing such a scourge from society.
Grallon is a fun target, but you and I know he is hardly representative of separatists.
Both Grallon and many RoC opponents of seperatism tacitly assume that Grallon's views are the reality for most seperatists, disguised by a polite fiction likely to fray under any sort of stress revealing the truth underneath. See the infamous "money and the ethnic vote" concession speech after the '95 referendum ... ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_and_the_ethnic_vote
Not to diminish the past, Viper, but at some point you gotta let it go. In the 1800's france attacked Portugal. That mean I can five zoupa a hard time? You don't have to forget, but why dwell. See the present for what it is. If you view it from the view of the past no measure will ever seem satisfactory.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 24, 2011, 04:10:22 PM
One wonders though, if you got your way (not the separatists but your particular brand of separatism) whether minorities would continue to prosper.
...
Why should any cultural community (other than the Anglo one for the reasons stated above) be encouraged to maintain its collective identity? If individuals originating say from Haiti left their country to come over here it's because Haiti wasn't providing them with the security/prosperity/stability they were looking for. Why then would they attempt to rebuild here a microcosm of the failed society they left behind? More to the point why should the majority allow them to attempt it!? So that we may indulge in a (false) sense of openness or enlightenment? That may be the case for a while, that is until the toxic beliefs and behaviors imported by immigrants allowed to congregate and maintain *their* social cohesion start spreading and disrupting the host society.
Case in point: Muslims and their attitudes towards women for instance. I see examples of this every day - at work for once. Recently a man of Moroccan origins was fired for dereliction of duties: he would systematically disregard instructions from his female supervisor. Allow enough individuals of like mind to 'form a community' - cozen them - as a group - with legal protections and exceptions and that type behavior will spread, gaining momentum and legitimacy - thus negating the advances of equality of the sexes reached here through historical evolution.
No there is no reasonable argument to protect and promote micro societies within the larger one. All individuals should be equal before the Law but there can be only one collective - the one whose contours and borders and substance is defined by the majority - until the assimilation process is complete.
G.
Quote from: HVC on August 24, 2011, 04:34:40 PM
... See the present for what it is. If you view it from the view of the past no measure will ever seem satisfactory.
And the present, for what it is, is that you can't get served in French by a company that is legally mandated to do so. We don't need to rehash 200 yo grievances to be faced with the truth of prejudices - we're still faced with it. ;)
G.
Quote from: Grallon on August 24, 2011, 04:39:00 PM
Why should any cultural community (other than the Anglo one for the reasons stated above) be encouraged to maintain its collective identity?
Repeat again, why the Anglo community should do this again?
Quote from: Grallon on August 24, 2011, 04:43:01 PM
And the present, for what it is, is that you can't get served in French by a company that is legally mandated to do so. We don't need to rehash 200 yo grievances to be faced with the truth of prejudices - we're still faced with it. ;)
:lol:
Don't be ridiculous.
Quote from: HVC on August 24, 2011, 04:34:40 PM
Not to diminish the past, Viper, but at some point you gotta let it go. In the 1800's france attacked Portugal. That mean I can five zoupa a hard time? You don't have to forget, but why dwell. See the present for what it is. If you view it from the view of the past no measure will ever seem satisfactory.
Sure the Spanish and French posters on Paradox had awesome arguements about that.
But you can hardly hold the French responsible. They didn't force you to be allies of the perfidious Albion.
The fact is that historically, French-speaking Canadian were looked down on, treated as second-class citizens, often coerced into using English, and generally kept from positions of political power, even in Quebec. But now that they have the political power within Quebec, they seem to want to treat Anglos within Quebec the same way the French speakers used to be treated. The problem for them is that for the most part, they are limited to mostly symbolic things because of modern notions of human and civil rights--but that's not really a problem for them, because it means that they can (correctly) say that English speakers in Quebec don't have it nearly as bad as French speakers throughout Canada used to have it. Basically, they appear to want to take revenge for past mistreatment and some current slights. That's understandable, but being understandable doesn't make it admirable, or morally or ethically defensible. And to an outside observer, the insistance that in the rest of Canada, French and English must be equal, but within Quebec, French must predominate, can hardly been seen as anything but hypocrisy.
Quote from: dps on August 24, 2011, 08:50:44 PM
But now that they have the political power within Quebec, they seem to want to treat Anglos within Quebec the same way the French speakers used to be treated.
This is really, really, really far from any sort of actual reality.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 24, 2011, 08:55:58 PM
Quote from: dps on August 24, 2011, 08:50:44 PM
But now that they have the political power within Quebec, they seem to want to treat Anglos within Quebec the same way the French speakers used to be treated.
This is really, really, really far from any sort of actual reality.
Not surprising--I'm pretty far away from Quebec. It's why I itialicized "seem" and "appear" in my post. It sure looks that way from a distance, especially when filtered through the prism of some of the things that Grallon posts.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 24, 2011, 01:40:51 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 24, 2011, 11:55:19 AM
Could be malice, or could just be they figure quebecers would just go to the .fr site. Corporations on a whole rarely work on malice. Unless all the IT guys and Baard of directors really hate quebec and veto'd the implementation or something. Oversite and stupidty is often a more accurate theory.
Er... No. If I want to buy the product in Canadian dollars, with Canadian service, why would I go to the .fr site - especially when the site adjusts to the IP adress?
Just in case it was oversight, I wrote an email (in English) asking why this was the case. Twice. Over a year ago. I have yet to receive an answer. I also asked in person, when I needed customer service, to have someone who spoke French talk to me. It never happened.
And, yes, this was but a single example. But when you multiply these examples in your personal life, you get frustrated - or you get the message that to get service in any kind, you should learn English. Which is what people here seem to be championing anyway - yet this is a different form of coercion. But since it is from the market, it is all alright.
Natural language evolution and death is a positive. Languages change, adapt and die due to the needs of it's speakers. The fact that 90% of languages will die (many at the hands of French in Africa) in that next century is something to be celebrated. This will greatly enhance the ability of people around the world to communicate with each other, greatly enhancing their ability to do business and negotiate, doing much to promote peace.
Quote from: Barrister on August 24, 2011, 02:24:24 PM
I mean I suppose it may be inevitable that one day we'll all be... speaking Anglo-Cantonese, but that doesn't mean we should welcome it.
Anglo-Mandarin. :contract:
And why shouldn't we welcome it? If everyone on Earth spoke the same language it would be a wonderful thing.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 24, 2011, 10:00:43 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 24, 2011, 02:24:24 PM
I mean I suppose it may be inevitable that one day we'll all be... speaking Anglo-Cantonese, but that doesn't mean we should welcome it.
Anglo-Mandarin. :contract:
And why shouldn't we welcome it? If everyone on Earth spoke the same language it would be a wonderful thing.
Sometimes I understand why people hate you so much.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 24, 2011, 10:00:43 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 24, 2011, 02:24:24 PM
I mean I suppose it may be inevitable that one day we'll all be... speaking Anglo-Cantonese, but that doesn't mean we should welcome it.
Anglo-Mandarin. :contract:
And why shouldn't we welcome it? If everyone on Earth spoke the same language it would be a wonderful thing.
They're not compatible. Also, Chinese is an evil language, spoken by evil people. The only way forward is their physical destruction. English is the only proper language for a civilized person to speak.
Quote from: Barrister on August 24, 2011, 10:02:28 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 24, 2011, 10:00:43 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 24, 2011, 02:24:24 PM
I mean I suppose it may be inevitable that one day we'll all be... speaking Anglo-Cantonese, but that doesn't mean we should welcome it.
Anglo-Mandarin. :contract:
And why shouldn't we welcome it? If everyone on Earth spoke the same language it would be a wonderful thing.
Sometimes I understand why people hate you so much.
This is the statement you choose to turn against Tim on? That's ridiculous. Of course there should be a world language.
It should be English, but I only say so because it's the language of the best societies on Earth, and I already speak it.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 24, 2011, 11:01:21 PM
This is the statement you choose to turn against Tim on? That's ridiculous. Of course there should be a world language.
It should be English, but I only say so because it's the language of the best societies on Earth, and I already speak it.
I really don't give a shit. I swear to learn a standard version of Icelandic and only use GMT if everyone else will agree to do the same and I never have to fuck around with languages, locales, and time zones again.
Quote
This is the statement you choose to turn against Tim on? That's ridiculous. Of course there should be a world language.
:hug:
An article on why language death shouldn't be feared.
http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/articles/2009-Fall/full-McWhorter-Fall-2009.html
Quote from: ulmont on August 24, 2011, 11:11:21 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 24, 2011, 11:01:21 PM
This is the statement you choose to turn against Tim on? That's ridiculous. Of course there should be a world language.
It should be English, but I only say so because it's the language of the best societies on Earth, and I already speak it.
I really don't give a shit. I swear to learn a standard version of Icelandic and only use GMT if everyone else will agree to do the same and I never have to fuck around with languages, locales, and time zones again.
Nope. I'm not learning Icelandic.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 24, 2011, 10:00:43 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 24, 2011, 02:24:24 PM
I mean I suppose it may be inevitable that one day we'll all be... speaking Anglo-Cantonese, but that doesn't mean we should welcome it.
Anglo-Mandarin. :contract:
And why shouldn't we welcome it? If everyone on Earth spoke the same language it would be a wonderful thing.
Mandarin. Lets use something that be typed with a standard keyboard.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 24, 2011, 03:59:02 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 24, 2011, 02:24:24 PM
One hardly needs to agree with Grallon or Slargos to believe that unique local cultures, traditions, and yes languages, help make the world a more interesting place and deserve to be protected.
I mean I suppose it may be inevitable that one day we'll all be eating identical Big Macs, listening to intechangeable pop music, speaking Anglo-Cantonese, but that doesn't mean we should welcome it.
You do know that our Canadian government goes to great lengths to try and promote and protect a unique Canadian identity? Are you opposed to that?
And to bring it full circle, the reason I can understand what our Quebecois friends are going through is the same reason I loved the opening post - I saw it as an effort to promote that unique Canadian identity to bring back the RCAF and RCN, and understand why Quebec wants to promote their own sense of identity.
The problem I see is there is little give and take. The Anglophones seem to have accepted the Francophones demands and have attempted to be inclusive (not always successfully). The French speakers on the other hand, have little interest in protecting minority groups in Quebec. Grallon has no desire to accommodate Muslims, and I doubt Cantonese is a protected language in Quebec. There seems to a demand that immigrants drop their cultural identity as quickly as possible and become part of Quebec's French culture while at the same time proudly resisting the anglo mono-culture. You can't have it both ways. The situation is similar in France so I think this is French Culture thing.
I wonder if the situation was reversed, if the Francophones we the majority in Canada and the Anglo-phones were the minority would they be so interested in preserving the quaint language and customs of their English speaking cousins?
One advice: before you speak bullshit, try to learn your subject :)
Quote from: HVC on August 18, 2011, 08:33:38 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 18, 2011, 08:27:45 AM
Quote from: HVC on August 18, 2011, 08:19:50 AM
only in so far as it ties in with a proud past.
The Kingdom of Portugal?
:p
If you want to, ya. longest alliance still in existance, IIRC
I thought that was the Auld Alliance. Omni modo fidelis and all that.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 24, 2011, 04:04:54 PM
Oh? The French seem to take pride in resisting Anglo inclusions in their vocabulary. Things like the headscarf ban and such seems to suggest they very interested in promoting "Frenchness".
Only to the extent every other Euro nation feels about their culture. France is a nation state...its very existance is based on being the political arm of a Euro nation. It has no other reason to exist. France is actually a bit more open to minorities than some since their identity is not as ethnically based and more cultural.
But anyway the headscarf ban is related to the French feelings about religion that stem from their long history. They think religion should be private and any public display of it is deeply offensive to them. But Turkey did the same thing. Maybe speakers of Turkish and French are exactly the same?
Quote from: viper37 on August 25, 2011, 08:26:42 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 24, 2011, 03:59:02 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 24, 2011, 02:24:24 PM
One hardly needs to agree with Grallon or Slargos to believe that unique local cultures, traditions, and yes languages, help make the world a more interesting place and deserve to be protected.
I mean I suppose it may be inevitable that one day we'll all be eating identical Big Macs, listening to intechangeable pop music, speaking Anglo-Cantonese, but that doesn't mean we should welcome it.
You do know that our Canadian government goes to great lengths to try and promote and protect a unique Canadian identity? Are you opposed to that?
And to bring it full circle, the reason I can understand what our Quebecois friends are going through is the same reason I loved the opening post - I saw it as an effort to promote that unique Canadian identity to bring back the RCAF and RCN, and understand why Quebec wants to promote their own sense of identity.
The problem I see is there is little give and take. The Anglophones seem to have accepted the Francophones demands and have attempted to be inclusive (not always successfully). The French speakers on the other hand, have little interest in protecting minority groups in Quebec. Grallon has no desire to accommodate Muslims, and I doubt Cantonese is a protected language in Quebec. There seems to a demand that immigrants drop their cultural identity as quickly as possible and become part of Quebec's French culture while at the same time proudly resisting the anglo mono-culture. You can't have it both ways. The situation is similar in France so I think this is French Culture thing.
I wonder if the situation was reversed, if the Francophones we the majority in Canada and the Anglo-phones were the minority would they be so interested in preserving the quaint language and customs of their English speaking cousins?
One advice: before you speak bullshit, try to learn your subject :)
Is Cantonese protected in Quebec? Must English be more predominate in private signage then French in Alberta?
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2011, 08:48:48 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 24, 2011, 04:04:54 PM
Oh? The French seem to take pride in resisting Anglo inclusions in their vocabulary. Things like the headscarf ban and such seems to suggest they very interested in promoting "Frenchness".
Only to the extent every other Euro nation feels about their culture. France is a nation state...its very existance is based on being the political arm of a Euro nation. It has no other reason to exist. France is actually a bit more open to minorities than some since their identity is not as ethnically based and more cultural.
But anyway the headscarf ban is related to the French feelings about religion that stem from their long history. They think religion should be private and any public display of it is deeply offensive to them. But Turkey did the same thing. Maybe speakers of Turkish and French are exactly the same?
I dunno? Do the English do such things? Do the Germans? Do they feel so strongly about their culture that someone displaying another cultural artifact is "Deeply offensive" to them?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 25, 2011, 08:51:49 AM
I dunno? Do the English do such things? Do the Germans? Do they feel so strongly about their culture that someone displaying another cultural artifact is "Deeply offensive" to them?
Yes nobody else in the entire world is offended by anything. Only French speakers ever get offended.
Anyway they banned it as a religious symbol not a cultural one. They see it as a breach of the separation of church and state. Like some Americans find nativity scenes on public grounds offensive.
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2011, 04:21:05 PM
You've been systematically abused since 1763? :yeahright:
Royal Proclamation: Catholics are forbidden to work for the colonial government. English is the only language allowed in public institution. Seigneurial regime and Clergy are forbidden to raise taxes.
The Act of Quebec corrected some of these, face with the impending revolution to the South.
Rebellion of 1837-1838: After a few minor skirmishes, the survivors were rounded up in a Church and burnt alive.
Lord Durham's report: French Canadians are a people without history and without future and must be assimilated for their own good.
The Act of Union: English is the official language in the parliament, Lower Canada (Quebec) absorbs the debt of Upper Canada (Ontario), both colonies are joined with one parliament, equal weight to both even if Quebec is more populous.
Rep by pop will become a popular movement in the years to come as British immigration is, obviously, favored, so that anglos can maintain control.
The Confederation: Much, much, corruption with this one. All accross the colonies, many people strood to gain from the construction of a railroad. And the obvious reason to unite was, obviously, to prevent Americans from grabbing British territory.
The Confederation was an imperfect compromise wich mostly favored Ontario. Protectionnist laws destroyed the economy of the Maritimes and dealt a severe blow to Quebec as well.
Louis Riel: Read about it. English settlers trying to impose their rules and expel the French Métis from there. They relocated to Saskatchewan, where again British and Canadian milicia troops were sent to dislodge them.
Manitoba School's act: English education only, no more French. Soon, Ontario and New Brunswick had similar legislation. For years to come, french public education was forbidden and the French speaking citizens were denied their rights. French Canadians then felt better off moving to New England than going for Manitoba, wich was the intended result.
1982 Constitution: The Constitution was drafted in one night to exclude Quebec, to make it unaceptable. The Supreme court has since ruled that the Constitution applies to Quebec, even though we didn't ratify it.
Sault-Ste-Marie: An Ontarian city that decided it would become unilingual French. This was not racism, unlike, oh say, requiring a french sign outside a busines...
Let's burn the flag: A bunch of Ontarians happily burn and tremple the Quebec flag in front of the cameras.
Reform Party: Once the French numbers had sufficiently dwindled, you would see the emergence of groups of people saying it makes no sense to keep official bilinguism
Lake Meech Accord: Not much there. Rejected because Canadians felt it was too much for Quebec, what with calling Quebec a distinct society... One Empire, one people.
Charlottetown Accord: Some half ass accord designed to keep Quebec in line. Was rejected by English Canada because it was again too much for Quebec.
Fiscal Imbalance: The Federal government kept taxing us but cut transfers to the provinces. Has since been partially repaired by the Conservatives, all that is left would be to make it permanent, but no Canadian government would do that.
Let's bring back the Colonial Army: as a slap in the face of all those who tought were fighting for Canada, the government has decided to rebrand the army, to make it official it belongs to the British monarchy and not the Canadian people.
There's a lot of griveances in the past. But I'm trying to build for the future, make a strong Quebec inside a strong Canada.
I don't believe my people have what it takes to achieve true independance from Canada, but I don't believe we should stay in Canada "because they like us". Neil's point of view is the dominant one in Canada. He can be fun to read, but when you know it's real, it's less fun.
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2011, 08:57:04 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 25, 2011, 08:51:49 AM
I dunno? Do the English do such things? Do the Germans? Do they feel so strongly about their culture that someone displaying another cultural artifact is "Deeply offensive" to them?
Yes nobody else in the entire world is offended by anything. Only French speakers ever get offended.
I remember... Once upon a time, in the old Languish forum, prior to the first moves, I posted in French. Oh boy. Was there complaints... Even Neil locked the first thread, before I got clarification from the Man himself. You guys keep whining as soon as someone uses a language other than English.
And FYI, lots of people defend their cultural identity, even the Canadians who feel threatend by the Americans.
:lmfao:
You have dredged up every possible slight against the French, given it the worst possible interpretation, then presented it here.
And I thought only Raz was trolling in this thread.
Quote from: viper37 on August 25, 2011, 08:59:27 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2011, 04:21:05 PM
You've been systematically abused since 1763? :yeahright:
Royal Proclamation: Catholics are forbidden to work for the colonial government. English is the only language allowed in public institution. Seigneurial regime and Clergy are forbidden to raise taxes.
The Act of Quebec corrected some of these, face with the impending revolution to the South.
Rebellion of 1837-1838: After a few minor skirmishes, the survivors were rounded up in a Church and burnt alive.
Lord Durham's report: French Canadians are a people without history and without future and must be assimilated for their own good.
The Act of Union: English is the official language in the parliament, Lower Canada (Quebec) absorbs the debt of Upper Canada (Ontario), both colonies are joined with one parliament, equal weight to both even if Quebec is more populous. Rep by pop will become a popular movement in the years to come as British immigration is, obviously, favored, so that anglos can maintain control.
The Confederation: Much, much, corruption with this one. All accross the colonies, many people strood to gain from the construction of a railroad. And the obvious reason to unite was, obviously, to prevent Americans from grabbing British territory.
The Confederation was an imperfect compromise wich mostly favored Ontario. Protectionnist laws destroyed the economy of the Maritimes and dealt a severe blow to Quebec as well.
Louis Riel: Read about it. English settlers trying to impose their rules and expel the French Métis from there. They relocated to Saskatchewan, where again British and Canadian milicia troops were sent to dislodge them.
Manitoba School's act: English education only, no more French. Soon, Ontario and New Brunswick had similar legislation. For years to come, french public education was forbidden and the French speaking citizens were denied their rights. French Canadians then felt better off moving to New England than going for Manitoba, wich was the intended result.
1982 Constitution: The Constitution was drafted in one night to exclude Quebec, to make it unaceptable. The Supreme court has since ruled that the Constitution applies to Quebec, even though we didn't ratify it.
Sault-Ste-Marie: An Ontarian city that decided it would become unilingual French. This was not racism, unlike, oh say, requiring a french sign outside a busines...
Let's burn the flag: A bunch of Ontarians happily burn and tremple the Quebec flag in front of the cameras.
Reform Party: Once the French numbers had sufficiently dwindled, you would see the emergence of groups of people saying it makes no sense to keep official bilinguism
Lake Meech Accord: Not much there. Rejected because Canadians felt it was too much for Quebec, what with calling Quebec a distinct society... One Empire, one people.
Charlottetown Accord: Some half ass accord designed to keep Quebec in line. Was rejected by English Canada because it was again too much for Quebec.
Fiscal Imbalance: The Federal government kept taxing us but cut transfers to the provinces. Has since been partially repaired by the Conservatives, all that is left would be to make it permanent, but no Canadian government would do that.
Let's bring back the Colonial Army: as a slap in the face of all those who tought were fighting for Canada, the government has decided to rebrand the army, to make it official it belongs to the British monarchy and not the Canadian people.
There's a lot of griveances in the past. But I'm trying to build for the future, make a strong Quebec inside a strong Canada.
I don't believe my people have what it takes to achieve true independance from Canada, but I don't believe we should stay in Canada "because they like us". Neil's point of view is the dominant one in Canada. He can be fun to read, but when you know it's real, it's less fun.
You are missing his point. He's questioning that "you" are old enough to have personally experoienced any of this.
As for equalization payments, Quebec gets more than all other provoinces combined.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equalization_payments_in_Canada
Quebec ($7.815 billion)
Ontario ($2.200 billion)
Manitoba ($1.666 billion)
New Brunswick ($1.483 billion)
Nova Scotia ($1.167 billion)
Prince Edward Island ($329 million)
I won't go through the rest pof your list - suffice it to say that the older the point, the more resonable a grievance it is; the recent ones are all either extremely petty or misstated, or both.
Glad to see Ile St. Jean getting so much cash.
Quote from: Barrister on August 25, 2011, 09:03:17 AM
:lmfao:
You have dredged up every possible slight against the French, given it the worst possible interpretation, then presented it here.
And I thought only Raz was trolling in this thread.
yes, but it was a list consisting of
- implementing English/British law in the new English/British colony
- shooting violent revolters
- predicting that unintegrated french speaking Quebeckers might be a problem in the future
- observing that unintegrated french speaking Quebeckers are a problem in the present
what they really seem to be complaining about is The Plains of Abraham
Quote from: Viking on August 25, 2011, 09:11:28 AM
what they really seem to be complaining about is The Plains of Abraham
Hey you do not fight for the outhouse when the barn is on fire.
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2011, 08:57:04 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 25, 2011, 08:51:49 AM
I dunno? Do the English do such things? Do the Germans? Do they feel so strongly about their culture that someone displaying another cultural artifact is "Deeply offensive" to them?
Yes nobody else in the entire world is offended by anything. Only French speakers ever get offended.
Anyway they banned it as a religious symbol not a cultural one. They see it as a breach of the separation of church and state. Like some Americans find nativity scenes on public grounds offensive.
The headscarf is more cultural then religious. Some Muslims do not wear it. I ask again, did the Germans or the English ban this? I believe in Britain Welsh is an official language. Does France have multiple official languages like the UK. Is Breton protected? Must signs in Southern France have Occitan "more predominate"?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 25, 2011, 09:13:15 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2011, 08:57:04 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 25, 2011, 08:51:49 AM
I dunno? Do the English do such things? Do the Germans? Do they feel so strongly about their culture that someone displaying another cultural artifact is "Deeply offensive" to them?
Yes nobody else in the entire world is offended by anything. Only French speakers ever get offended.
Anyway they banned it as a religious symbol not a cultural one. They see it as a breach of the separation of church and state. Like some Americans find nativity scenes on public grounds offensive.
The headscarf is more cultural then religious. Some Muslims do not wear it. I ask again, did the Germans or the English ban this? I believe in Britain Welsh is an official language. Does France have multiple official languages like the UK. Is Breton protected? Must signs in Southern France have Occitan "more predominate"?
Why don't you google or wiki for these answers? I dont get it.
I wouldn't bother responding to Raz in this thread.
Quote from: Barrister on August 25, 2011, 09:24:52 AM
I wouldn't bother responding to Raz in this thread.
But...he is going after my peoples! :weep:
Quote from: Zoupa on August 25, 2011, 08:45:07 AM
Quote from: HVC on August 18, 2011, 08:33:38 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 18, 2011, 08:27:45 AM
Quote from: HVC on August 18, 2011, 08:19:50 AM
only in so far as it ties in with a proud past.
The Kingdom of Portugal?
:p
If you want to, ya. longest alliance still in existance, IIRC
I thought that was the Auld Alliance. Omni modo fidelis and all that.
Null and void since the Act of Union as I understand it.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 25, 2011, 09:21:08 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 25, 2011, 09:13:15 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2011, 08:57:04 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 25, 2011, 08:51:49 AM
I dunno? Do the English do such things? Do the Germans? Do they feel so strongly about their culture that someone displaying another cultural artifact is "Deeply offensive" to them?
Yes nobody else in the entire world is offended by anything. Only French speakers ever get offended.
Anyway they banned it as a religious symbol not a cultural one. They see it as a breach of the separation of church and state. Like some Americans find nativity scenes on public grounds offensive.
The headscarf is more cultural then religious. Some Muslims do not wear it. I ask again, did the Germans or the English ban this? I believe in Britain Welsh is an official language. Does France have multiple official languages like the UK. Is Breton protected? Must signs in Southern France have Occitan "more predominate"?
Why don't you google or wiki for these answers? I dont get it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_policy_in_France
BTW, if French language policy were applied to Canada then there would be no French signage outside of Quebec and English would have to be fully accepted in Quebec as well. The Quebeckers have it way too good.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on August 25, 2011, 09:41:32 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on August 25, 2011, 08:45:07 AM
Quote from: HVC on August 18, 2011, 08:33:38 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 18, 2011, 08:27:45 AM
Quote from: HVC on August 18, 2011, 08:19:50 AM
only in so far as it ties in with a proud past.
The Kingdom of Portugal?
:p
If you want to, ya. longest alliance still in existance, IIRC
I thought that was the Auld Alliance. Omni modo fidelis and all that.
Null and void since the Act of Union as I understand it.
Probably since James' accession to the Englsh throne.
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2011, 09:27:03 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 25, 2011, 09:24:52 AM
I wouldn't bother responding to Raz in this thread.
But...he is going after my peoples! :weep:
your people are texans you damn dirty francophile! :ultra: :P
Quote from: Viking on August 25, 2011, 09:43:30 AM
BTW, if French language policy were applied to Canada then there would be no French signage outside of Quebec and English would have to be fully accepted in Quebec as well. The Quebeckers have it way too good.
Yeah they are not in Europe (or Asia or Africa for that matter) with all its ethnic conflicts and long history of violence. They are in a North American country where we do not tend to see those sorts of things as threats (and frankly given what usually happens when you have a people speaking a minority language I don't blame them). Which is why alot of us came here in the first place.
It's funny, because viper's list of greivances are all a hundred years or more old, aside from the newer, completely made-up ones.
Quote from: HVC on August 25, 2011, 09:45:44 AM
your people are texans you damn dirty francophile! :ultra: :P
There are six flags in Texas...and one of them is French :yeah:
Granted it is the wrong one but still.
Can you guys stop comparing us to France, damn it. Fucking Anglos.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 25, 2011, 10:08:34 AM
Can you guys stop comparing us to France, damn it. Fucking Anglos.
Yeah, the great culture, amazing artwork, leadership in intellectual matters and fashion ... none applies. :P
But you will always have Celine Dion. :console:
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 25, 2011, 10:08:34 AM
Can you guys stop comparing us to France, damn it. Fucking Anglos.
It is just Raz. He represents only Missourians who live in basements.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 25, 2011, 10:08:34 AM
Can you guys stop comparing us to France, damn it. Fucking Anglos.
Because that is the alternative.
:yeahright:
Quote from: Viking on August 25, 2011, 10:20:45 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 25, 2011, 10:08:34 AM
Can you guys stop comparing us to France, damn it. Fucking Anglos.
Because that is the alternative.
What Oex said.
Quote from: Viking on August 25, 2011, 10:20:45 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 25, 2011, 10:08:34 AM
Can you guys stop comparing us to France, damn it. Fucking Anglos.
Because that is the alternative.
To what?
I am not Viper. I believe that English rule was 100% better then what a comparative French rule would have been. Plus you know, we would have ended up english anyway when Nappy would have sold us out.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 25, 2011, 10:41:15 AM
I believe that English rule was 100% better then what a comparative French rule would have been.
:huh:
Quote from: Zoupa on August 25, 2011, 10:42:45 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 25, 2011, 10:41:15 AM
I believe that English rule was 100% better then what a comparative French rule would have been.
:huh:
I don't know about that part either, but your snipped out the most important part - it all would have gone to hell in a handbasket 50 years later when the Revolution and Nappy happened.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 25, 2011, 10:41:15 AM
I am not Viper. I believe that English rule was 100% better then what a comparative French rule would have been. Plus you know, we would have ended up english anyway when Nappy would have sold us out.
Nappy would have sold you to us though to keep the Brits out of North America.
Quote from: Barrister on August 25, 2011, 10:45:24 AM
I don't know about that part either, but your snipped out the most important part - it all would have gone to hell in a handbasket 50 years later when the Revolution and Nappy happened.
Are we sure a French victory in the Seven Years War scenario would have resulted in everything else happening exactly the same though? This is why alt history fails for me.
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2011, 11:06:00 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 25, 2011, 10:45:24 AM
I don't know about that part either, but your snipped out the most important part - it all would have gone to hell in a handbasket 50 years later when the Revolution and Nappy happened.
Are we sure a French victory in the Seven Years War scenario would have resulted in everything else happening exactly the same though? This is why alt history fails for me.
Well I fail to see how France winning the Seven Years War would prevent the French Revolution.
QuoteThe Constitution was drafted in one night to exclude Quebec
You have a point to make about the manner in which the Constitution Act 1982 came to be but this allegation is simply false.
Quote from: Barrister on August 25, 2011, 11:07:52 AM
Well I fail to see how France winning the Seven Years War would prevent the French Revolution.
Hell a politically savvy Louis could have prevented the French Revolution.
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2011, 10:52:01 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 25, 2011, 10:41:15 AM
I am not Viper. I believe that English rule was 100% better then what a comparative French rule would have been. Plus you know, we would have ended up english anyway when Nappy would have sold us out.
Nappy would have sold you to us though to keep the Brits out of North America.
Exactly. So now, Quebec would be poor, unilingual English speakers who wouldn't enjoy any of the wealth or social protections of Canada. An unequivocal disaster.
Quote from: Malthus on August 25, 2011, 09:07:50 AM
You are missing his point. He's questioning that "you" are old enough to have personally experoienced any of this.
Yes, it like if I complained about the treatment of black people today and cited slavery as a grievance. People definitely do it - but they look odd.
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2011, 11:10:26 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 25, 2011, 11:07:52 AM
Well I fail to see how France winning the Seven Years War would prevent the French Revolution.
Hell a politically savvy Louis could have prevented the French Revolution.
I think you're oversimplifying.
Quote from: Neil on August 25, 2011, 11:19:15 AM
I think you're oversimplifying.
Yeah? Well I think you are over-complicating.
But seriously the personality and shortcomings of Louis did have a part to play. If those had been different things, among many other factors, things would have been different
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2011, 11:22:13 AM
Yeah? Well I think you are over-complicating.
But seriously the personality and shortcomings of Louis did have a part to play. If those had been different things, among many other factors, things would have been different
Sure, and if King Louis XVI had had a vagina instead of a penis, he would have been Queen Louisa. So what?
Great. We've gone from adding British royalty to the armed forces, to transexual French royalty. :D
Quote from: Malthus on August 25, 2011, 12:18:38 PM
Great. We've gone from adding British royalty to the armed forces, to transexual French royalty. :D
Canadian Royalty! :mad:
Quote from: grumbler on August 25, 2011, 12:16:44 PM
Sure, and if King Louis XVI had had a vagina instead of a penis, he would have been Queen Louisa. So what?
Huh? I stated my point already. Saying things like 'Well if France had won the Seven Years War it all would have made no difference because once the Revolution happens..'
Well that is a pretty big departure to just assume everything would have gone the same way. Even something far less significant like the personal failings of Louis might have had it go far differently. That is why Alt His does not really work for me, my suspension of disbelief is hard to get out of the way. Did I not just say this exact same thing? Why are you asking 'So what?'?
Quote from: Malthus on August 25, 2011, 12:18:38 PM
transexual French royalty.
No need to be redundant.
Quote from: Barrister on August 25, 2011, 12:24:54 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 25, 2011, 12:18:38 PM
Great. We've gone from adding British royalty to the armed forces, to transexual French royalty. :D
Canadian Royalty! :mad:
Okay, transexual Canadian royalty, if you insist. :D
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2011, 12:35:38 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 25, 2011, 12:28:51 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 25, 2011, 12:18:38 PM
transexual French royalty.
No need to be redundant.
Hey! Louis XIV looked macho in his silk stockings.
And six-inch heels. And wigs. And makeup. And ... oh wait.
Quote from: Viking on August 25, 2011, 09:43:30 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on August 25, 2011, 09:21:08 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 25, 2011, 09:13:15 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2011, 08:57:04 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 25, 2011, 08:51:49 AM
I dunno? Do the English do such things? Do the Germans? Do they feel so strongly about their culture that someone displaying another cultural artifact is "Deeply offensive" to them?
Yes nobody else in the entire world is offended by anything. Only French speakers ever get offended.
Anyway they banned it as a religious symbol not a cultural one. They see it as a breach of the separation of church and state. Like some Americans find nativity scenes on public grounds offensive.
The headscarf is more cultural then religious. Some Muslims do not wear it. I ask again, did the Germans or the English ban this? I believe in Britain Welsh is an official language. Does France have multiple official languages like the UK. Is Breton protected? Must signs in Southern France have Occitan "more predominate"?
Why don't you google or wiki for these answers? I dont get it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_policy_in_France
BTW, if French language policy were applied to Canada then there would be no French signage outside of Quebec and English would have to be fully accepted in Quebec as well. The Quebeckers have it way too good.
Your wikipedia article mentions bilingual signage in Brittany. I've seen Occitan street names as well in Toulouse.
It also mentions this article from the French constitution:
«
Les langues régionales appartiennent au patrimoine de la France.»
— Article 75-1
cf. A revision of the French constitution creating official recognition of regional languages was implemented by the Parliament in Congress at Versailles in July 2008.[2
Jacobinism Third Republic style is
passé now.
Yeah I had a big write up about the bilingual street signs in Occitanville and the protection for minority languages, but I decided the whole conversation was getting ridiculous.
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2011, 12:57:00 PM
Yeah I had a big write up about the bilingual street signs in Occitanville and so forth but I decided the whole conversation was getting ridiculous.
Languish is DIEING!!!11one
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 25, 2011, 10:08:34 AM
Can you guys stop comparing us to France, damn it. Fucking Anglos.
the quebecers are comparing us the the US. fair is fair :P
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2011, 12:57:00 PM
Yeah I had a big write up about the bilingual street signs in Occitanville and the protection for minority languages, but I decided the whole conversation was getting ridiculous.
Since when has that stopped any Languishite? :contract:
Quote from: Malthus on August 25, 2011, 01:18:31 PM
Since when has that stopped any Languishite? :contract:
In this particular case it was Barrister Boy instructing us to stop responding to Raz. I thought responding to him after that would make me look bad.
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2011, 01:21:01 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 25, 2011, 01:18:31 PM
Since when has that stopped any Languishite? :contract:
In this particular case it was Barrister Boy instructing us to stop responding to Raz. I thought responding to him after that would make me look bad.
Since when has that ever stopped any Languishite?
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2011, 01:21:01 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 25, 2011, 01:18:31 PM
Since when has that stopped any Languishite? :contract:
In this particular case it was Barrister Boy instructing us to stop responding to Raz. I thought responding to him after that would make me look bad.
Stop.
Hold on.
Let me get this straight:
Someone on languish actually listened to what I said?
*thud*
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2011, 01:21:01 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 25, 2011, 01:18:31 PM
Since when has that stopped any Languishite? :contract:
In this particular case it was Barrister Boy instructing us to stop responding to Raz. I thought responding to him after that would make me look bad.
Your posts tend to make you look bad, whether you're responding to Raz or someone else. :)
Quote from: Barrister on August 25, 2011, 01:52:34 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2011, 01:21:01 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 25, 2011, 01:18:31 PM
Since when has that stopped any Languishite? :contract:
In this particular case it was Barrister Boy instructing us to stop responding to Raz. I thought responding to him after that would make me look bad.
Stop.
Hold on.
Let me get this straight:
Someone on languish actually listened to what I said?
*thud*
Every once in a while people make mistakes. Can't always hold it against them :P
Quote from: dps on August 25, 2011, 01:57:20 PM
Your posts tend to make you look bad, whether you're responding to Raz or someone else. :)
So why make a bad situation worse?
Quote from: Barrister on August 25, 2011, 01:52:34 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2011, 01:21:01 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 25, 2011, 01:18:31 PM
Since when has that stopped any Languishite? :contract:
In this particular case it was Barrister Boy instructing us to stop responding to Raz. I thought responding to him after that would make me look bad.
Stop.
Hold on.
Let me get this straight:
Someone on languish actually listened to what I said?
*thud*
Hey, I listen all the time.
...
How else would I know what to make fun of next? :P
Quote from: Barrister on August 25, 2011, 01:52:34 PM
Stop.
Hold on.
Let me get this straight:
Someone on languish actually listened to what I said?
*thud*
Are you kidding? You are my Languish SuperEgo.
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2011, 02:22:59 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 25, 2011, 01:52:34 PM
Stop.
Hold on.
Let me get this straight:
Someone on languish actually listened to what I said?
*thud*
Are you kidding? You are my Languish SuperEgo.
:blush:
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2011, 02:22:59 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 25, 2011, 01:52:34 PM
Stop.
Hold on.
Let me get this straight:
Someone on languish actually listened to what I said?
*thud*
Are you kidding? You are my Languish SuperEgo.
Well, thank goodness he isn't your Languish Id.
An overpowering urge to play curling is a terrible affliction for a Texan. :(
Quote from: Malthus on August 25, 2011, 03:12:26 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2011, 02:22:59 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 25, 2011, 01:52:34 PM
Stop.
Hold on.
Let me get this straight:
Someone on languish actually listened to what I said?
*thud*
Are you kidding? You are my Languish SuperEgo.
Well, thank goodness he isn't your Languish Id.
An overpowering urge to play curling is a terrible affliction for a Texan. :(
:ultra:
You don't "play curling".
You curl.
And it's a noble sport, no matter where you live. Why - there's even a curling club in Austin!
http://www.lonestarcurlingclub.org/
:scots:
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2011, 12:25:45 PM
Huh? I stated my point already. Saying things like 'Well if France had won the Seven Years War it all would have made no difference because once the Revolution happens..'
Well that is a pretty big departure to just assume everything would have gone the same way. Even something far less significant like the personal failings of Louis might have had it go far differently. That is why Alt His does not really work for me, my suspension of disbelief is hard to get out of the way. Did I not just say this exact same thing? Why are you asking 'So what?'?
One can make an interesting speculation about a change in a historical event; one cannot make an interesting speculation based on "well, if people had been different..." because it was possible for France to have won the Seven Years' War; it wasn't possible for the King of France in 1789 to have been a different person with the same name.
I agree with you that suspension of disbelief is impossible in the case of a different Louis XVI, but disagree in the case of a French victory of some type in the SYW; we can postulate with some knowledge as to how the latter could have come about; the former is fantasy.
Quote from: Barrister on August 25, 2011, 09:24:52 AM
I wouldn't bother responding to Raz in this thread.
:( I think these are legitimate questions.
Quote from: Barrister on August 25, 2011, 03:28:21 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 25, 2011, 03:12:26 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2011, 02:22:59 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 25, 2011, 01:52:34 PM
Stop.
Hold on.
Let me get this straight:
Someone on languish actually listened to what I said?
*thud*
Are you kidding? You are my Languish SuperEgo.
Well, thank goodness he isn't your Languish Id.
An overpowering urge to play curling is a terrible affliction for a Texan. :(
:ultra:
You don't "play curling".
You curl.
And it's a noble sport, no matter where you live. Why - there's even a curling club in Austin!
http://www.lonestarcurlingclub.org/
:scots:
Telling a Texan that he may have "an urge to curl" can be misconstrued as some sort of euphemism. :D
Quote from: Malthus on August 25, 2011, 03:43:25 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 25, 2011, 03:28:21 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 25, 2011, 03:12:26 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2011, 02:22:59 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 25, 2011, 01:52:34 PM
Stop.
Hold on.
Let me get this straight:
Someone on languish actually listened to what I said?
*thud*
Are you kidding? You are my Languish SuperEgo.
Well, thank goodness he isn't your Languish Id.
An overpowering urge to play curling is a terrible affliction for a Texan. :(
:ultra:
You don't "play curling".
You curl.
And it's a noble sport, no matter where you live. Why - there's even a curling club in Austin!
http://www.lonestarcurlingclub.org/
:scots:
Telling a Texan that he may have "an urge to curl" can be misconstrued as some sort of euphemism. :D
A euphemism for having fun playing a centuries old scottish game involving 40lb granite rocks? :scots:
Quote from: Barrister on August 25, 2011, 03:46:57 PM
A euphemism for having fun playing a centuries old scottish game involving 40lb granite rocks? :scots:
Valmy and Marti may be getting excited now.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 25, 2011, 09:21:08 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 25, 2011, 09:13:15 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2011, 08:57:04 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 25, 2011, 08:51:49 AM
I dunno? Do the English do such things? Do the Germans? Do they feel so strongly about their culture that someone displaying another cultural artifact is "Deeply offensive" to them?
Yes nobody else in the entire world is offended by anything. Only French speakers ever get offended.
Anyway they banned it as a religious symbol not a cultural one. They see it as a breach of the separation of church and state. Like some Americans find nativity scenes on public grounds offensive.
The headscarf is more cultural then religious. Some Muslims do not wear it. I ask again, did the Germans or the English ban this? I believe in Britain Welsh is an official language. Does France have multiple official languages like the UK. Is Breton protected? Must signs in Southern France have Occitan "more predominate"?
Why don't you google or wiki for these answers? I dont get it.
The point was to get Valmy to admit they are not. The article that Viking posted blatantly says what I was claiming, that France sees itself fighting the English language. The bitching and moaning about English and the need to for French to predominate is rooted in French culture, which is why I brought France into this.
QuoteFrance presents itself as a big country struggling for cultural diversity against the predominance of English in international affairs. According to French republican ideology (see also Laïcité), all citizens are equal and therefore no groups may exercise extra rights; this is an idea stemming from the French Revolution, contrasting with the previous situation in which many groups had special rights and privileges.
I thought the point was validating some vague, misguided form of essentialism of French culture on your part.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 25, 2011, 03:53:43 PM
I thought the point was validating some vague, misguided form of essentialism of French culture on your part.
Clarify your statement.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 25, 2011, 03:49:49 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 25, 2011, 03:46:57 PM
A euphemism for having fun playing a centuries old scottish game involving 40lb granite rocks? :scots:
Valmy and Marti may be getting excited now.
Huh?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 25, 2011, 03:36:36 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 25, 2011, 09:24:52 AM
I wouldn't bother responding to Raz in this thread.
:( I think these are legitimate questions.
Well...I will think about it.
But I guess when BB posted that it did start to look like you were just attacking France and trying to spin everything as negatively as you possibly could in an attempt to get a rise out of me. I am not particularly interested in having that conversation where you take something, state it in the most negative spin you can, and then make me disprove your spin.
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2011, 04:25:02 PM
I am not particularly interested in having that conversation where you take something, state it in the most negative spin you can, and then make me disprove your spin.
You aren't leaving him any out, you know. That is his entire sctick.
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2011, 04:17:10 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 25, 2011, 03:49:49 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 25, 2011, 03:46:57 PM
A euphemism for having fun playing a centuries old scottish game involving 40lb granite rocks? :scots:
Valmy and Marti may be getting excited now.
Huh?
Different reasons. You probably would be excited about curling in the way BB intended it to be understood.
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2011, 04:25:02 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 25, 2011, 03:36:36 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 25, 2011, 09:24:52 AM
I wouldn't bother responding to Raz in this thread.
:( I think these are legitimate questions.
Well...I will think about it.
But I guess when BB posted that it did start to look like you were just attacking France and trying to spin everything as negatively as you possibly could in an attempt to get a rise out of me. I am not particularly interested in having that conversation where you take something, state it in the most negative spin you can, and then make me disprove your spin.
I use France as an example because it's the only other Francophone country I know much about. I guess I could bring up some African countries, but I really don't know much about them. I see similarities between the way Quebec and France view language and culture. You are correct that many countries in Europe had a similar mindset, but most of them outgrew it. The Germans don't go on about "Kultur", anymore. And the anglophones in Canada have allowed French to be at an equal status to English. The Francophones do not seem interested in reciprocating. French must be put in superior status to any other language. Compare Anglophones in Canada and Britain to Francophones in Quebec and France in respect to a minority language.: In Britain: Welsh is an official language, in Canada French is an official language. In France, only French is an official language and in Quebec French must be more predominant. This suggests to me that the way anglophones and francophones view language is and culture different and gives some insight as to why Francophones seemed so outraged by things like painting being taken down or the renaming military units, or the wearing of veils and headscarf which seem so petty to an anglophone. Or at least to me.
Quebec doesn't really have a good analog. France itself has history and culture, and a sense of being masters in their own house. On the other hand, the former French colonies are all extremely poor and barbaric.
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2011, 11:06:00 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 25, 2011, 10:45:24 AM
I don't know about that part either, but your snipped out the most important part - it all would have gone to hell in a handbasket 50 years later when the Revolution and Nappy happened.
Are we sure a French victory in the Seven Years War scenario would have resulted in everything else happening exactly the same though? This is why alt history fails for me.
I don't see even Sam Adams managing to muster up anything more than mild snarkyness at the British with a French Army at Quebec. So... a French victory in 7YW is likely to prevent any disagreements in the colonies to revolt imh.alt.hist.o
A French victory in the seven years war wouldn't necessarily mean that they retain Quebec.
Quote from: Neil on August 25, 2011, 06:48:14 PM
A French victory in the seven years war wouldn't necessarily mean that they retain Quebec.
Well, the British would have to hand Quebec back if the Hannoverians want Hannover back.
Quote from: Viking on August 25, 2011, 06:54:24 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 25, 2011, 06:48:14 PM
A French victory in the seven years war wouldn't necessarily mean that they retain Quebec.
Well, the British would have to hand Quebec back if the Hannoverians want Hannover back.
Assuming the French are in the mood to hand it back to an inevitably hostile Britain at all. French territorial ambitions in Germany were quite extensive.
Quote from: Neil on August 25, 2011, 07:05:48 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 25, 2011, 06:54:24 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 25, 2011, 06:48:14 PM
A French victory in the seven years war wouldn't necessarily mean that they retain Quebec.
Well, the British would have to hand Quebec back if the Hannoverians want Hannover back.
Assuming the French are in the mood to hand it back to an inevitably hostile Britain at all. French territorial ambitions in Germany were quite extensive.
meh... Hannover was a millstone around the Imperial Ambitions of Britain. You can't run an international trading empire if any upstart tinpot european landlocked with a small but competent army can conquer and torch the hometown of the king of Britain, holding it hostage. The Salic Law inheritance of Hannover was the true foundation of the British Empire.
Quote from: Viking on August 25, 2011, 07:34:07 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 25, 2011, 07:05:48 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 25, 2011, 06:54:24 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 25, 2011, 06:48:14 PM
A French victory in the seven years war wouldn't necessarily mean that they retain Quebec.
Well, the British would have to hand Quebec back if the Hannoverians want Hannover back.
Assuming the French are in the mood to hand it back to an inevitably hostile Britain at all. French territorial ambitions in Germany were quite extensive.
meh... Hannover was a millstone around the Imperial Ambitions of Britain. You can't run an international trading empire if any upstart tinpot european landlocked with a small but competent army can conquer and torch the hometown of the king of Britain, holding it hostage. The Salic Law inheritance of Hannover was the true foundation of the British Empire.
Well, I think that Lord Clive had a little more to do with it, but I agree that Britain benefited from disentangling the monarch from Germany.
Quote from: Neil on August 25, 2011, 05:31:36 PM
Quebec doesn't really have a good analog. France itself has history and culture, and a sense of being masters in their own house. On the other hand, the former French colonies are all extremely poor and barbaric.
I'm trying to find an explanation for this bizarre behavior. I"m doing the best I can.
The best explanation that I can see is that many French-speaking Canadians are still in denial about the Plains of Abraham, much as many Americans in the south are still in denial about Appamattox. With the big caveat that while I (unfortunately) get to view the latter close up, I only glimse the former from a distance.
Quote from: dps on August 26, 2011, 05:04:20 AM
The best explanation that I can see is that many French-speaking Canadians are still in denial about the Plains of Abraham, much as many Americans in the south are still in denial about Appamattox. With the big caveat that while I (unfortunately) get to view the latter close up, I only glimse the former from a distance.
It's not a denial because the rest of Canadian history had not played the Plains of Abraham as a Conquest which was supposed to wipe out any remnant of identity or political autonomy that should have had the result of French Canadians bowing their heads in shame. It was emphatically not about saying "you lost": it was about saying "France lost, and it actually didn't like you. We, on the other hand, really like you." (This, for all sorts of historical reasons). Hence the recognition of the Catholic Church (a first in the British empire), of the civil laws, of French, the recognition of a strong political entity - the Province of Quebec - etc. Therefore arose the idea of Canada as a union of two people, and the strong ambiguity on the way the Plains of Abraham, and the Conquest need to be understood.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 26, 2011, 09:51:41 AM
Quote from: dps on August 26, 2011, 05:04:20 AM
The best explanation that I can see is that many French-speaking Canadians are still in denial about the Plains of Abraham, much as many Americans in the south are still in denial about Appamattox. With the big caveat that while I (unfortunately) get to view the latter close up, I only glimse the former from a distance.
It's not a denial because the rest of Canadian history had not played the Plains of Abraham as a Conquest which was supposed to wipe out any remnant of identity or political autonomy that should have had the result of French Canadians bowing their heads in shame. It was emphatically not about saying "you lost": it was about saying "France lost, and it actually didn't like you. We, on the other hand, really like you." (This, for all sorts of historical reasons). Hence the recognition of the Catholic Church (a first in the British empire), of the civil laws, of French, the recognition of a strong political entity - the Province of Quebec - etc. Therefore arose the idea of Canada as a union of two people, and the strong ambiguity on the way the Plains of Abraham, and the Conquest need to be understood.
Yeah that was my feeling. You never have French Canadians having very warm feelings about France. They were apathetic and a bit hostile to fighting in either World War to help France. So angst over no longer being French because of the Seven Years War is probably not the source.
Quote from: dps on August 26, 2011, 05:04:20 AM
The best explanation that I can see is that many French-speaking Canadians are still in denial about the Plains of Abraham, much as many Americans in the south are still in denial about Appamattox. With the big caveat that while I (unfortunately) get to view the latter close up, I only glimse the former from a distance.
I think it is bitterness about how they were treated in Canada in the more recent past. It is hard to find a good comparison in America. I mean we have African Americans and Native Americans but they do not correlate perfectly. You almost have to look at ethnic minorities in Eurasia. Like Poles who went through Russification or Romanians with Magyarization...but less so.
Quote from: Valmy on August 26, 2011, 09:59:00 AM
I think it is bitterness about how they were treated in Canada in the more recent past. It is hard to find a good comparison in America. I mean we have African Americans and Native Americans but they do not correlate perfectly. You almost have to look at ethnic minorities in Eurasia. Like Poles who went through Russification or Romanians with Magyarization...but less so.
It's a very good analysis, imho.
Quote from: Valmy on August 26, 2011, 09:59:00 AM
Quote from: dps on August 26, 2011, 05:04:20 AM
The best explanation that I can see is that many French-speaking Canadians are still in denial about the Plains of Abraham, much as many Americans in the south are still in denial about Appamattox. With the big caveat that while I (unfortunately) get to view the latter close up, I only glimse the former from a distance.
I think it is bitterness about how they were treated in Canada in the more recent past. It is hard to find a good comparison in America. I mean we have African Americans and Native Americans but they do not correlate perfectly. You almost have to look at ethnic minorities in Eurasia. Like Poles who went through Russification or Romanians with Magyarization...but less so.
Yeah, but how was Quebec treated badly in the "recent past" - say, in our actual lifetimes? The perception at least is that Quebec gets consideration far above that granted other provinces, and they are hardly being "oppressed" by (for example) being handed equalization payments greater than all other provinces combined.
When the topic comes up, people from Quebec inevitable dredge up examples from the 19th century - see Viper's list upthread. The 19th century is not the "recent past".
A better view is that some people from Quebec have a sense of grievance fueled by *historical* injustices. They identify with those poor saps hanged by the Brits in the 1830s. This sense of historical injustice keeps them looking for present day examples of 'insults" and "humiliations" which are, practically speaking, not intended as such, or are extremely petty - like the guy finding a stewardess unable to serve him a 7-Up in French. When those in the RoC express hilarity or outrage over this hyper-sensitivity, that is further proof that they, the French speakers, are "hated", so the sense of grievance becomes a self-fulfilling cycle.
Quote from: Malthus on August 26, 2011, 10:35:36 AM
Yeah, but how was Quebec treated badly in the "recent past" - say, in our actual lifetimes?
I said more recent past not recent past. As in more recent than 1759, I meant the 19th century. Hence my references to other groups with 19th century greviences.
Quote from: dps on August 26, 2011, 05:04:20 AM
The best explanation that I can see is that many French-speaking Canadians are still in denial about the Plains of Abraham, much as many Americans in the south are still in denial about Appamattox. With the big caveat that while I (unfortunately) get to view the latter close up, I only glimse the former from a distance.
Some Southerners are, but they don't get special treatment because of it. I'm wondering if a better example is African Americans and affirmative action.
Quote from: Malthus on August 26, 2011, 10:35:36 AM
When the topic comes up, people from Quebec inevitable dredge up examples from the 19th century - see Viper's list upthread. The 19th century is not the "recent past".
I think it is partly the result of many things.
The first is that any national identity takes its root in the past, and makes the past very much alive, and part of the present. Witness the fuss around the "Founding Fathers", the original intent, the "States' rights", the Vendée, etc. Even the Canadians on Languish can't really escape taking up arms over "the meaning" of 1812.
The second is, indeed, a historical narrative of grievances which remain. In fact, part of the decline of the vindicativeness of the separatism movement, which you so celebrate, is because the people who do remember *contemporary* grievances - symbols of what was percieved as symptomatic of the Canada - Quebec relationship, begin to die. The hated bill 101 had done lots in that regard: it was easier to be angry at the public dominance of English when such dominance was manifest every day.
The third is the other general sense that for people to wish for their own country, they need to be oppressed and miserable. The material, economic conditions or legal oppression are considered more legitimate standards of evaluation than any sense of belonging or identity, relegated into the "irrational sentiment" category, and thereby disregarded. This goes both ways. For the "independance" movements, it requires to prove that there are material, legal or political injustices to fight. For the "anti-independance" movements, it is used to demonstrate that independance is simply not necessary or illegitimate.
This is why Quebec's independance movement suffers some hiccups. From its begining, the PQ had tried to present independance simultaneously as a positive movement, and one aimed at fighting past injustices. The time for strong vindicativeness is past. The language laws, the rise of a francophone Quebec's middle class - and indeed, of Quebec entrepreneurship, has erased (or at least mellowed) the heritage of its past. The oppression rhetoric within the independance movement is dead or moribund, except when specific constitutional or political crisis arise. But the remaining part of the rhetoric is more difficult to sell. Especially in our age, when collective movements in general are frowned upon and discredited, and when the celebration of individual rights is used in quasi "end-of-history" rhetoric, and where material comfort is supposed to take precedence over any sort of ideal.
Also I wonder how much the de-Trudeauization of Canada, if I can put it that way, has played a part. Less interference with Provinces within their jurisdictions has essentially killed the kind of separatist movements we used to have in the West. Has it had some effect in Quebec?
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 26, 2011, 11:31:03 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 26, 2011, 10:35:36 AM
When the topic comes up, people from Quebec inevitable dredge up examples from the 19th century - see Viper's list upthread. The 19th century is not the "recent past".
I think it is partly the result of many things.
The first is that any national identity takes its root in the past, and makes the past very much alive, and part of the present. Witness the fuss around the "Founding Fathers", the original intent, the "States' rights", the Vendée, etc. Even the Canadians on Languish can't really escape taking up arms over "the meaning" of 1812.
The second is, indeed, a historical narrative of grievances which remain. In fact, part of the decline of the vindicativeness of the separatism movement, which you so celebrate, is because the people who do remember *contemporary* grievances - symbols of what was percieved as symptomatic of the Canada - Quebec relationship, begin to die. The hated bill 101 had done lots in that regard: it was easier to be angry at the public dominance of English when such dominance was manifest every day.
The third is the other general sense that for people to wish for their own country, they need to be oppressed and miserable. The material, economic conditions or legal oppression are considered more legitimate standards of evaluation than any sense of belonging or identity, relegated into the "irrational sentiment" category, and thereby disregarded. This goes both ways. For the "independance" movements, it requires to prove that there are material, legal or political injustices to fight. For the "anti-independance" movements, it is used to demonstrate that independance is simply not necessary or illegitimate.
This is why Quebec's independance movement suffers some hiccups. From its begining, the PQ had tried to present independance simultaneously as a positive movement, and one aimed at fighting past injustices. The time for strong vindicativeness is past. The language laws, the rise of a francophone Quebec's middle class - and indeed, of Quebec entrepreneurship, has erased (or at least mellowed) the heritage of its past. The oppression rhetoric within the independance movement is dead or moribund, except when specific constitutional or political crisis arise. But the remaining part of the rhetoric is more difficult to sell. Especially in our age, when collective movements in general are frowned upon and discredited, and when the celebration of individual rights is used in quasi "end-of-history" rhetoric, and where material comfort is supposed to take precedence over any sort of ideal.
Putain de bordel de merde, ca c'est bien dit.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 26, 2011, 12:17:38 PM
Putain de bordel de merde, ca c'est bien dit.
:lol:
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 26, 2011, 11:31:03 AM
when the celebration of individual rights is used in quasi "end-of-history" rhetoric, and where material comfort is supposed to take precedence over any sort of ideal.
Great post, up until about here.
I find the casual disparagement of "individual rights" while in the same sentence lamenting the lack of relevance of "ideals" in favor of material comfort rather...interesting.
Isn't respect for individual rights an ideal? I would argue it is a rather important one, much moreso than a more nevulously defined (even undefined) set of other ideals that appear to only be relevant in that they ought to be more important than "material comfort".
Personally, material comfort is pretty important to me. It strikes me as rather odd that your hierarchy appears to
Undefined ideals having to do with French language/culture > individual rights >< material comfort?
Quote from: Malthus on August 25, 2011, 09:07:50 AM
You are missing his point. He's questioning that "you" are old enough to have personally experoienced any of this.
Most African-American of my age have not known the era where they had to sit at the back of the bus of use seperate bathroom. It must been it never existed and racism is long dead...
Just like feminism. Since woman have essentially achived equal status to men, why the heck bother with laws stating they're equal and actually enforcing it? If a company doesn't want to hire women or blacks, it should be their right, no? Otherwise, it would be the minority trampling the rights of the majority.
Quote
As for equalization payments, Quebec gets more than all other provoinces combined.
True, but I was talking about fiscal imbalance. Two different things.
You know, like taking the money from the taxes but not giving it back to the provinces?
Who's to say the next government won't try that again? There's nothing to prevent it. Any Liberal or NDP government could decide provinces don't deserve their money.
Quote
I won't go through the rest pof your list - suffice it to say that the older the point, the more resonable a grievance it is; the recent ones are all either extremely petty or misstated, or both.
Yes of course... An English speaking Quebecer is forced to *gasp* put a sign in French, this is horrible discrimination. Trying to erase the French identity of this country however is "petty".
It's like all those Jews complaining about anti-semitism, what with burnt Synagogues and vandalized cemeteraries. Their grievances are petty or missstated.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 26, 2011, 11:31:03 AM
I think it is partly the result of many things.
The first is that any national identity takes its root in the past, and makes the past very much alive, and part of the present. Witness the fuss around the "Founding Fathers", the original intent, the "States' rights", the Vendée, etc. Even the Canadians on Languish can't really escape taking up arms over "the meaning" of 1812.
Fair enough, but a matter of emphasis. If Canadian posters spent a significant amount of time lamenting the outcome of the war of 1812, and saw everything Americans did in light of the war of 1812, they would encounter a certain amount of 'please get over it now' too.
QuoteThe second is, indeed, a historical narrative of grievances which remain. In fact, part of the decline of the vindicativeness of the separatism movement, which you so celebrate, is because the people who do remember *contemporary* grievances - symbols of what was percieved as symptomatic of the Canada - Quebec relationship, begin to die. The hated bill 101 had done lots in that regard: it was easier to be angry at the public dominance of English when such dominance was manifest every day.
The third is the other general sense that for people to wish for their own country, they need to be oppressed and miserable. The material, economic conditions or legal oppression are considered more legitimate standards of evaluation than any sense of belonging or identity, relegated into the "irrational sentiment" category, and thereby disregarded. This goes both ways. For the "independance" movements, it requires to prove that there are material, legal or political injustices to fight. For the "anti-independance" movements, it is used to demonstrate that independance is simply not necessary or illegitimate.
This is why Quebec's independance movement suffers some hiccups. From its begining, the PQ had tried to present independance simultaneously as a positive movement, and one aimed at fighting past injustices. The time for strong vindicativeness is past. The language laws, the rise of a francophone Quebec's middle class - and indeed, of Quebec entrepreneurship, has erased (or at least mellowed) the heritage of its past. The oppression rhetoric within the independance movement is dead or moribund, except when specific constitutional or political crisis arise. But the remaining part of the rhetoric is more difficult to sell. Especially in our age, when collective movements in general are frowned upon and discredited, and when the celebration of individual rights is used in quasi "end-of-history" rhetoric, and where material comfort is supposed to take precedence over any sort of ideal.
PTo my mind, the "ideal" of ethno-nationalism is itself somewhat suspect.
Berkut - I don't think Oex put them into a hierarchy? He just suggested that these factors make separatism a harder sell these days.
Personally, I'm with you in many ways - I'm pretty attached to my material comforts and would rate material well-being for people above various abstract ideals in most cases. On the other hand that's not an uncommon argument in favour of "Asian values" (you know "the Communist party lifted hundreds of millions out of absolute poverty, that is the most important human right!" and "yes, Singapore is 'highly controlled' but it's also orderly, prosperous and safe" etc), so I'm not sure how far it goes.
The other thing I'm unsure about in Oex's post is the "quasi-end of history rhetoric" bit. Are people still thinking and arguing like we're at the end of history? Seems like there's plenty going on between economic crises, the rise of China, Brazil, India etc and the recent developments in the Arab world. Or is it a more technical term?
Yeah, I think I may not have understood his post fully.
And I agree with you on the material things, and the observation about how far it goes.
However, a comparison to China is not very apt - even in China one can make an argument about whether the rise in material comfort is worth the cost in freedom.
But I don't think any such argument can be made in Quebec. Qubec is, last I heard, a Westernized liberal society that enjoys all the freedom and respect for liberty that we expect out of most western nations. It's not like there is any real practical oppression ongoing, hence the need to dredge up past actual injustice, or cast current minor quibbles as being grossly more serious than they actually are...which Oex certainly mentioned.
Quote from: Jacob on August 26, 2011, 12:43:27 PMThe other thing I'm unsure about in Oex's post is the "quasi-end of history rhetoric" bit. Are people still thinking and arguing like we're at the end of history? Seems like there's plenty going on between economic crises, the rise of China, Brazil, India etc and the recent developments in the Arab world. Or is it a more technical term?
I did not mean it in the sense that there would be no more change, but rather that people argue that if individual rights are respected, then there is precious little else worth fighting for - or the remaining injustices or causes pale in comparison. In other words, fighting for one's rights in the Arab world is wonderful. But in westernized societies where we can quibble about the way such rights are interpreted, what other great cause is seen as legitimate? Since their fundmental rights are respected, people are more or less told to "deal with" whatever else they might feel unjust, or short of their (other) ideals.
And you were right that I did not set out to create a hierarchy - because I am not sure intemporal hierarchies (i.e., abstract fundamental individual rights always trump abstract collective ideals) are meaningful - and, in any case, I am not sure either how I would organize them myself. One of my hunch or fear is that the celebration of individual rights in the abstract is not conducive to the creation of interpersonal bonds which are a requirement of citizenry, of living, breathing democracies (as opposed to democracy reduced to voting every X years). We need "something more" - and culture plays a huge role in it, even though it is today reduced to a matter of "opinion" or "choice in the market". But that hunch does not make me a champion of Stalinist authoritarianism nor a supporter of racial tribalism - and if people (not targetted at any one here) want to insist that these are the only possible alternatives, then I see little use in discussing with them.
It is a matter of not all rights being equal. There is a substantial difference between individual rights and collective rights. The so called rights the Quebeckers are fighting for are collective rights, they are struggling for the rights of a language or a culture, not struggling for the rights of the individuals speaking that language or participating in that culture.
QED.
Quote from: Viking on August 26, 2011, 02:01:15 PM
It is a matter of not all rights being equal. There is a substantial difference between individual rights and collective rights. The so called rights the Quebeckers are fighting for are collective rights, they are struggling for the rights of a language or a culture, not struggling for the rights of the individuals speaking that language or participating in that culture.
Collective rights are used as an excuse to abridge personal rights, in almost all cases. Hell, I am not sure I even buy the idea that there is any such thing as "collective rights". How can a collective have rights? A collective is not a person - is a collective right a right held by the individuals within the collective? Can those rights be removed simply by removing the individual from the group, and given by their inclusion? How big of a group does one need for it to spontaneously form rights? is 2 out of a group of 3 enough for the two to vote on their collective right to remove the individual rights of the third?
Sounds like a invention to me, and one largely designed to justify ignoring actual rights in favor of collective control.
Quote from: Berkut on August 26, 2011, 02:22:36 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 26, 2011, 02:01:15 PM
It is a matter of not all rights being equal. There is a substantial difference between individual rights and collective rights. The so called rights the Quebeckers are fighting for are collective rights, they are struggling for the rights of a language or a culture, not struggling for the rights of the individuals speaking that language or participating in that culture.
Collective rights are used as an excuse to abridge personal rights, in almost all cases. Hell, I am not sure I even buy the idea that there is any such thing as "collective rights". How can a collective have rights? A collective is not a person - is a collective right a right held by the individuals within the collective? Can those rights be removed simply by removing the individual from the group, and given by their inclusion? How big of a group does one need for it to spontaneously form rights? is 2 out of a group of 3 enough for the two to vote on their collective right to remove the individual rights of the third?
Sounds like a invention to me, and one largely designed to justify ignoring actual rights in favor of collective control.
It doesn't surprise me one bit you reject the notion of collective rights.
Quote from: Barrister on August 26, 2011, 02:32:56 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 26, 2011, 02:22:36 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 26, 2011, 02:01:15 PM
It is a matter of not all rights being equal. There is a substantial difference between individual rights and collective rights. The so called rights the Quebeckers are fighting for are collective rights, they are struggling for the rights of a language or a culture, not struggling for the rights of the individuals speaking that language or participating in that culture.
Collective rights are used as an excuse to abridge personal rights, in almost all cases. Hell, I am not sure I even buy the idea that there is any such thing as "collective rights". How can a collective have rights? A collective is not a person - is a collective right a right held by the individuals within the collective? Can those rights be removed simply by removing the individual from the group, and given by their inclusion? How big of a group does one need for it to spontaneously form rights? is 2 out of a group of 3 enough for the two to vote on their collective right to remove the individual rights of the third?
Sounds like a invention to me, and one largely designed to justify ignoring actual rights in favor of collective control.
It doesn't surprise me one bit you reject the notion of collective rights.
Why is that? Honest question.
They just seem to me like a means to avoid respecting individual rights. Heck, I cannot even really imagine what "collective rights" mean in the particular, rather then general, sense. Which raises my "bullshit" alarm a bit...I am pretty skeptical of the idea that there are this very vaguely defined group rights that trump individual and well defined rights.
What is an example of a right that is only held by a group?
Quote from: Berkut on August 26, 2011, 02:22:36 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 26, 2011, 02:01:15 PM
It is a matter of not all rights being equal. There is a substantial difference between individual rights and collective rights. The so called rights the Quebeckers are fighting for are collective rights, they are struggling for the rights of a language or a culture, not struggling for the rights of the individuals speaking that language or participating in that culture.
Collective rights are used as an excuse to abridge personal rights, in almost all cases. Hell, I am not sure I even buy the idea that there is any such thing as "collective rights". How can a collective have rights? A collective is not a person - is a collective right a right held by the individuals within the collective? Can those rights be removed simply by removing the individual from the group, and given by their inclusion? How big of a group does one need for it to spontaneously form rights? is 2 out of a group of 3 enough for the two to vote on their collective right to remove the individual rights of the third?
Sounds like a invention to me, and one largely designed to justify ignoring actual rights in favor of collective control.
Collective rights are also quite often used by "community leaders" as a means of creating a minority-majority conflict with the only common consequence of such a conflict is the "community leaders" increasing influence. Find a minority, find an issue, claim that issue is oppression and you have a ready made conflict with you as the ready made "community leader". Make the issue something like female genital mutilation and all of a sudden the ready made muslim community (from the last collective right issue) will rally around to protect something they themselves might abhor to protect the community and strengthen the "community leaders" within the community. Throw in some cultural relativists and post-modernists and all of a sudden you have re-introduced tribalism to an otherwise modern country.
When considering issues like this I have to agree with Bertrand Russell that Rousseau, Herder, Hegel, Nietzsche, Heidegger and Derrida are pure evil scum. (though Russell probably never heard of Derrida being long dead at the time).
Quote from: Barrister on August 26, 2011, 02:32:56 PM
It doesn't surprise me one bit you reject the notion of collective rights.
And rightly he shouldn't. Collective rights are a form of tyranny over minorities.
Quote from: Berkut on August 26, 2011, 02:37:38 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 26, 2011, 02:32:56 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 26, 2011, 02:22:36 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 26, 2011, 02:01:15 PM
It is a matter of not all rights being equal. There is a substantial difference between individual rights and collective rights. The so called rights the Quebeckers are fighting for are collective rights, they are struggling for the rights of a language or a culture, not struggling for the rights of the individuals speaking that language or participating in that culture.
Collective rights are used as an excuse to abridge personal rights, in almost all cases. Hell, I am not sure I even buy the idea that there is any such thing as "collective rights". How can a collective have rights? A collective is not a person - is a collective right a right held by the individuals within the collective? Can those rights be removed simply by removing the individual from the group, and given by their inclusion? How big of a group does one need for it to spontaneously form rights? is 2 out of a group of 3 enough for the two to vote on their collective right to remove the individual rights of the third?
Sounds like a invention to me, and one largely designed to justify ignoring actual rights in favor of collective control.
It doesn't surprise me one bit you reject the notion of collective rights.
Why is that? Honest question.
They just seem to me like a means to avoid respecting individual rights. Heck, I cannot even really imagine what "collective rights" mean in the particular, rather then general, sense. Which raises my "bullshit" alarm a bit...I am pretty skeptical of the idea that there are this very vaguely defined group rights that trump individual and well defined rights.
What is an example of a right that is only held by a group?
Because you're a borderline librarytarian, of course. I didn't mean my response to be overly snarky. I would have utterly expected your response.
Examples of "collective rights"? Well this one - to take steps to preserve a language or culture. I disagree with Valmy that's the right of the majority - it's usually held to be the right of the minority. Like Quebecois within Canada, or of our first nations.
"To take steps to preserve a language or culture". See, that is what I mean - that is poorly defined, and could mean anything. What group has that right?
If I learn to speak French, do I become a part of that group? Does that confer on me some kind of right I didn't have before I learned French? Does that mean I have the right to ignore the rights of others, or that their individual rights are now lessened as a result of this group right? Who expresses the will of this group and their "right" to "protect their culture"?
What if my group is a bunch of white people in South Africa? Does my group have the right to set aside or limit the individual rights of blacks in order to protect my groups right to our culture?
Again, this just seems like a means to justify the denial of otherwise pretty immutable individual rights - there does not seem to be any purpose to these "group rights" except to do just that.
Quote from: Barrister on August 26, 2011, 02:58:45 PM
Examples of "collective rights"? Well this one - to take steps to preserve a language or culture. I disagree with Valmy that's the right of the majority - it's usually held to be the right of the minority. Like Quebecois within Canada, or of our first nations.
What rights do the Quebecois enjoy that nobody else does? It strikes me they are exactly the same.
But in any case it is not a completely absolute evil, collective rights, it is an idea that is well intentioned but which generally, IMO, produces very bad results. But not always.
I am not just super sure Canadian and American policy towards the Native Americans, giving them special status, has just been a whopping success either...but it is sure better than the way these things have tended to play out in the old world.
Quote from: Valmy on August 26, 2011, 03:07:07 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 26, 2011, 02:58:45 PM
Examples of "collective rights"? Well this one - to take steps to preserve a language or culture. I disagree with Valmy that's the right of the majority - it's usually held to be the right of the minority. Like Quebecois within Canada, or of our first nations.
What rights do the Quebecois enjoy that nobody else does? It strikes me they are exactly the same.
But in any case it is not a completely absolute evil, collective rights, it is an idea that is well intentioned but which generally, IMO, produces very bad results. But not always.
I am not just super sure Canadian and American policy towards the Native Americans, giving them special status, has just been a whopping success either...but it is sure better than the way these things have tended to play out in the old world.
Well look to our constitution. They have the right to French government services, the right to French language schools (and in many provinces, the right to Catholic schools).
As for Natives - well it has allowed them to survive as a separate and identifiable people and culture, which is something imoprtant to them.
Quote from: Barrister on August 26, 2011, 03:09:50 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 26, 2011, 03:07:07 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 26, 2011, 02:58:45 PM
Examples of "collective rights"? Well this one - to take steps to preserve a language or culture. I disagree with Valmy that's the right of the majority - it's usually held to be the right of the minority. Like Quebecois within Canada, or of our first nations.
What rights do the Quebecois enjoy that nobody else does? It strikes me they are exactly the same.
But in any case it is not a completely absolute evil, collective rights, it is an idea that is well intentioned but which generally, IMO, produces very bad results. But not always.
I am not just super sure Canadian and American policy towards the Native Americans, giving them special status, has just been a whopping success either...but it is sure better than the way these things have tended to play out in the old world.
Well look to our constitution. They have the right to French government services, the right to French language schools (and in many provinces, the right to Catholic schools).
As for Natives - well it has allowed them to survive as a separate and identifiable people and culture, which is something imoprtant to them.
They could not have done so without collective rights, as opposed to individual rights?
Quote from: Berkut on August 26, 2011, 03:12:50 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 26, 2011, 03:09:50 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 26, 2011, 03:07:07 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 26, 2011, 02:58:45 PM
Examples of "collective rights"? Well this one - to take steps to preserve a language or culture. I disagree with Valmy that's the right of the majority - it's usually held to be the right of the minority. Like Quebecois within Canada, or of our first nations.
What rights do the Quebecois enjoy that nobody else does? It strikes me they are exactly the same.
But in any case it is not a completely absolute evil, collective rights, it is an idea that is well intentioned but which generally, IMO, produces very bad results. But not always.
I am not just super sure Canadian and American policy towards the Native Americans, giving them special status, has just been a whopping success either...but it is sure better than the way these things have tended to play out in the old world.
Well look to our constitution. They have the right to French government services, the right to French language schools (and in many provinces, the right to Catholic schools).
As for Natives - well it has allowed them to survive as a separate and identifiable people and culture, which is something imoprtant to them.
They could not have done so without collective rights, as opposed to individual rights?
Not sure which part of my response your question is directed at.
Quote from: Barrister on August 26, 2011, 03:09:50 PM
Well look to our constitution. They have the right to French government services, the right to French language schools (and in many provinces, the right to Catholic schools).
As for Natives - well it has allowed them to survive as a separate and identifiable people and culture, which is something imoprtant to them.
Everybody has a right to French in government services and French language schools. Everybody also has a right to English in Government services and English language schools. The Quebecois just usually pick the former.
Quote from: Barrister on August 26, 2011, 03:09:50 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 26, 2011, 03:07:07 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 26, 2011, 02:58:45 PM
Examples of "collective rights"? Well this one - to take steps to preserve a language or culture. I disagree with Valmy that's the right of the majority - it's usually held to be the right of the minority. Like Quebecois within Canada, or of our first nations.
What rights do the Quebecois enjoy that nobody else does? It strikes me they are exactly the same.
But in any case it is not a completely absolute evil, collective rights, it is an idea that is well intentioned but which generally, IMO, produces very bad results. But not always.
I am not just super sure Canadian and American policy towards the Native Americans, giving them special status, has just been a whopping success either...but it is sure better than the way these things have tended to play out in the old world.
Well look to our constitution. They have the right to French government services, the right to French language schools (and in many provinces, the right to Catholic schools).
As for Natives - well it has allowed them to survive as a separate and identifiable people and culture, which is something imoprtant to them.
This just proves the foolishness of attempting to scribe in constitutional stone a snapshot of the population as it existed at the time of confederation.
For example, take the funding of religious schools in Ontario. Is there any really sensible reason why Catholic schools are fully funded, but (say) Jewish or Muslim schools are not? Why are Catholics considered more worthy of state support?
I understand the historical reasons why this is so, but it makes no frigging sense in the present day. A Jew or a muslim is a taxpayer and a citizen just like a Catholic. Either all religious schools should be funded (based on some eligibility criteria) or none should be.
Quote from: viper37 on August 26, 2011, 12:37:34 PM
Yes of course... An English speaking Quebecer is forced to *gasp* put a sign in French, this is horrible discrimination. Trying to erase the French identity of this country however is "petty".
It's like all those Jews complaining about anti-semitism, what with burnt Synagogues and vandalized cemeteraries. Their grievances are petty or missstated.
Are you serious? Really, are you serious?
Quote from: Valmy on August 26, 2011, 03:18:12 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 26, 2011, 03:09:50 PM
Well look to our constitution. They have the right to French government services, the right to French language schools (and in many provinces, the right to Catholic schools).
As for Natives - well it has allowed them to survive as a separate and identifiable people and culture, which is something imoprtant to them.
Everybody has a right to French in government services and French language schools. Everybody also has a right to English in Government services and English language schools. The Quebecois just usually pick the former.
If it was an individual right, it would be the right to those services in your own language.
Instead, English and French speakers are given special rights.
Quote from: Barrister on August 26, 2011, 03:28:34 PM
If it was an individual right, it would be the right to those services in your own language.
Instead, English and French speakers are given special rights.
"English and French speakers" are not a collective. They are individuals who speak one of the official languages. Anybody can get access to that stuff, you just need to learn a skill. But you certainly do not need to be 'Quebecois' or be part of some other group.
Quote from: Malthus on August 26, 2011, 03:24:23 PM
For example, take the funding of religious schools in Ontario. Is there any really sensible reason why Catholic schools are fully funded, but (say) Jewish or Muslim schools are not? Why are Catholics considered more worthy of state support?
They are publicly funded, so long as they teach the province's curriculum.
Quote
I understand the historical reasons why this is so, but it makes no frigging sense in the present day. A Jew or a muslim is a taxpayer and a citizen just like a Catholic. Either all religious schools should be funded (based on some eligibility criteria) or none should be.
In Quebec, public schools are no longer seperated on a religious basis, only language basis.
Muslim and Jewish schools can receive funding, even if they are private (60% public funding for all private schools), though they have to abide by the basics of the Education Department. That means no creationism, and no "preparation to be a good wife" stuff.
Quote from: Barrister on August 26, 2011, 02:58:45 PM
Because you're a borderline librarytarian, of course. I didn't mean my response to be overly snarky. I would have utterly expected your response.
Examples of "collective rights"? Well this one - to take steps to preserve a language or culture. I disagree with Valmy that's the right of the majority - it's usually held to be the right of the minority. Like Quebecois within Canada, or of our first nations.
I tend to agree with Valmy and Berkut on this issue--collective rights, while not necessarily pernicious in theory, in practice are almost always exercised or invoked in opposition to individual rights. It would seem that Berkut is more opposed to the concept than I am, and Valmy is less opposed than I, but fundamentally I believe we are in agreement. Is it because all 3 of us are "borderline librarytarian"s? There are certainly differences among the 3 of us on other issues.
Quote from: Berkut on August 26, 2011, 02:22:36 PM
Sounds like a invention to me, and one largely designed to justify ignoring actual rights in favor of collective control.
Are 'acutal' rights any less of an invention?
Quote from: dps on August 26, 2011, 05:01:51 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 26, 2011, 02:58:45 PM
Because you're a borderline librarytarian, of course. I didn't mean my response to be overly snarky. I would have utterly expected your response.
Examples of "collective rights"? Well this one - to take steps to preserve a language or culture. I disagree with Valmy that's the right of the majority - it's usually held to be the right of the minority. Like Quebecois within Canada, or of our first nations.
I tend to agree with Valmy and Berkut on this issue--collective rights, while not necessarily pernicious in theory, in practice are almost always exercised or invoked in opposition to individual rights. It would seem that Berkut is more opposed to the concept than I am, and Valmy is less opposed than I, but fundamentally I believe we are in agreement. Is it because all 3 of us are "borderline librarytarian"s? There are certainly differences among the 3 of us on other issues.
I'm kinda with you guys on this one. Not as strong as Berkut, but collective rights and by extension collective punishment is not the best way to handle things. There are exceptions of course, as with anything.
Quote from: Neil on August 26, 2011, 05:43:46 PM
Are 'acutal' rights any less of an invention?
Of course they are since they're nothing but the end result of a convention agreed upon by a majority. There are no such things are ''inalienable rights". Any right can be alienated if there's a social consensus to do so.
Similarly if a consensus is reached by a majority about 'collective rights' - then those rights become reality. Such a consensus was reached in Quebec about the protection of the French language and the end result was Bill 101. And this confirms the mild impositions that law represent for the members of the Anglo minority have more to do with 'bruised egos' than any actual 'oppression'. *sneers*
G.
Quote from: Grallon on August 26, 2011, 06:14:36 PM
And this confirms the mild impositions that law represent for the members of the Anglo minority have more to do with 'bruised egos' than any actual 'oppression'. *sneers*
Oddly enough, to those of us without a dog in the fight, it is the consensus that the exaggeration of "oppression" and whiny bruised egos is on the part of the Francophones. Most of the Anglophiles don't really seem to care until some bruised ego starts demanding half a million because his stewardess doesn't know how to say "7-Up" in French.
Quote from: Grallon on August 26, 2011, 06:14:36 PM
Of course they are since they're nothing but the end result of a convention agreed upon by a majority. There are no such things are ''inalienable rights". Any right can be alienated if there's a social consensus to do so.
Similarly if a consensus is reached by a majority about 'collective rights' - then those rights become reality. Such a consensus was reached in Quebec about the protection of the French language and the end result was Bill 101. And this confirms the mild impositions that law represent for the members of the Anglo minority have more to do with 'bruised egos' than any actual 'oppression'. *sneers*
I don't know. It seems to me that if Quebec isn't willing to pay for things themselves, they should subordinate themselves to the Anglos who are gracious enough to help them. The behavior of Quebecois separatists is childish, because on the one hand they beg English Canada for money, and on the other hand sneer at them. They're the equivalent of British yobs.
Quote from: Berkut on August 26, 2011, 06:23:46 PM
Quote from: Grallon on August 26, 2011, 06:14:36 PM
And this confirms the mild impositions that law represent for the members of the Anglo minority have more to do with 'bruised egos' than any actual 'oppression'. *sneers*
Oddly enough, to those of us without a dog in the fight, it is the consensus that the exaggeration of "oppression" and whiny bruised egos is on the part of the Francophones. Most of the Anglophiles don't really seem to care until some bruised ego starts demanding half a million because his stewardess doesn't know how to say "7-Up" in French.
7-Up in french is still 'Seven-Up'.
Quote from: Neil on August 26, 2011, 05:43:46 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 26, 2011, 02:22:36 PM
Sounds like a invention to me, and one largely designed to justify ignoring actual rights in favor of collective control.
Are 'acutal' rights any less of an invention?
I suppose there may still be some that believe in the classical liberal notion of Man's natural state - despite all the evidence to the contrary.
Quote from: Neil on August 26, 2011, 07:51:56 PM
I don't know. It seems to me that if Quebec isn't willing to pay for things themselves, they should subordinate themselves to the Anglos who are gracious enough to help them. The behavior of Quebecois separatists is childish, because on the one hand they beg English Canada for money, and on the other hand sneer at them. They're the equivalent of British yobs.
:rolleyes:
You over emphasize the value of 'oil sands' money. One could just as easily contend that French Canada, because it was at some point more populous than any other territories attached to British North America, payed to develop what has become since the western provinces. Then this would devolve into a lawyer/accountant debate (as if it never do so...) about who payed more or less and consequently whose rights have more weight than those of others.
I am not interested in a balance sheet debate.
Through political sponsorship and immigration English Canada has become more populous than Quebec. Naturally the dominant paradigm here has shifted according to the numbers.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on August 26, 2011, 08:41:41 PM
You over emphasize the value of 'oil sands' money. One could just as easily contend that French Canada, because it was at some point more populous than any other territories attached to British North America, payed to develop what has become since the western provinces. Then this would devolve into a lawyer/accountant debate (as if it never do so...) about who payed more or less and consequently whose rights have more weight than those of others.
I am not interested in a balance sheet debate.
Through political sponsorship and immigration English Canada has become more populous than Quebec. Naturally the dominant paradigm here has shifted according to the numbers.
There's a lot of money in Ontario too, even if they've chosen to waste it. Besides, Ontario has had a larger population than Quebec at least since Confederation, and before that it was Britain who was paying the way. If Quebec was larger prior to Confederation it was irrelevant, because the people of Quebec were property of the British crown.
Quote from: Berkut on August 26, 2011, 06:23:46 PM
Oddly enough, to those of us without a dog in the fight, it is the consensus that the exaggeration of "oppression" and whiny bruised egos is on the part of the Francophones. Most of the Anglophiles don't really seem to care until some bruised ego starts demanding half a million because his stewardess doesn't know how to say "7-Up" in French.
Do you hang out with Canadians on a regular basis? How do you know they don't much care? How do you know Grallon represents the general attitude of the Francophones? Grey Fox doesn't seem to give a shit.
Or I guess you might, you live up there.
Berkut likes to troll on familiar grounds. There's rarely any need to take him seriously. ;)
Quote from: Valmy on August 27, 2011, 10:18:20 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 26, 2011, 06:23:46 PM
Oddly enough, to those of us without a dog in the fight, it is the consensus that the exaggeration of "oppression" and whiny bruised egos is on the part of the Francophones. Most of the Anglophiles don't really seem to care until some bruised ego starts demanding half a million because his stewardess doesn't know how to say "7-Up" in French.
Do you hang out with Canadians on a regular basis?
Yes.
QuoteHow do you know they don't much care?
Because they say things like "I don't much care", and laugh at people whining about 7-Up.
Quote
How do you know Grallon represents the general attitude of the Francophones?
How do you know that I know that Grallon...wait, what were we talking about?
Quote
Grey Fox doesn't seem to give a shit.
Not all Francophones are whiny bitches, news at 11.
Quote
Or I guess you might, you live up there.
You don't need to "live up there" to hear the opinions of Canuckles.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 27, 2011, 11:20:36 PM
Berkut likes to troll on familiar grounds. There's rarely any need to take him seriously. ;)
Pot, meet kettle.
Quote from: Grallon on August 26, 2011, 08:41:41 PM
I am not interested in a balance sheet debate.
Because you know you would lose such a debate. :mellow:
The problem for separatists is they have a reasonably compelling historic / emotional case to be made for separatism. But economically they have nothing. There is no reasonably basis to believe that an independent Quebec would be anything but worse off once it loses equalization / renegotiates NAFTA / loses control over the loonie.
In fact Quebec has never been a net contributor to equalization since the entire concept was invented. It's not surprising that you just want to waive your hands and ignore these facts.
Quote from: Barrister on August 28, 2011, 12:05:21 AM
Quote from: Grallon on August 26, 2011, 08:41:41 PM
I am not interested in a balance sheet debate.
Because you know you would lose such a debate. :mellow:
Then again, he would lose
any kind of debate. Intellectual intercourse isn't gral's strong suit! :lol:
Quote from: Berkut on August 27, 2011, 11:28:53 PM
Yes.
Cool.
QuoteBecause they say things like "I don't much care", and laugh at people whining about 7-Up.
Yeah we have frivolous lawsuits in our country all the time. But I am getting a little tired of talking about this. THe guy is an activist who sues for these sorts of things all the time. One activist is every french speaking person in Canada?
QuoteHow do you know that I know that Grallon...wait, what were we talking about?
Because it looks like you are taking Grallon's post to back up your theory that Francophones = Whiners.
QuoteNot all Francophones are whiny bitches, news at 11.
Alright then. So when you said 'Francophones are like this but the Anglophones are like this' what you meant was...what?
Surely you do not mean Anglophones never whine, never have victim conplexes, never have frivolous lawsuits or annoying politicial activists...because we are like superior or something...
QuoteYou don't need to "live up there" to hear the opinions of Canuckles.
Yeah...I don't know if Languish is a good barometer for what the general population of a group feel. I just presumed you were not basing all of this on what people on Languish say.
Quote from: Barrister on August 28, 2011, 12:05:21 AM
The problem for separatists is they have a reasonably compelling historic / emotional case to be made for separatism.
But the extent that is compelling seems to be lessening over time yes? Grallon seems pretty sure now it will never happen.
Quote from: Barrister on August 28, 2011, 12:05:21 AM
...
In fact Quebec has never been a net contributor to equalization since the entire concept was invented. It's not surprising that you just want to waive your hands and ignore these facts.
There are reasons to become independant other than getting wealthier. And one has to be willing to make sacrifices in order to reach one's goals. Besides Quebecers could use some hardship... they've become far too complacent.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on August 28, 2011, 01:45:35 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 28, 2011, 12:05:21 AM
...
In fact Quebec has never been a net contributor to equalization since the entire concept was invented. It's not surprising that you just want to waive your hands and ignore these facts.
There are reasons to become independant other than getting wealthier. And one has to be willing to make sacrifices in order to reach one's goals. Besides Quebecers could use some hardship... they've become far too complacent.
G.
mixing up means and ends again?
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2011, 12:13:11 PM
Yeah...I don't know if Languish is a good barometer for what the general population of a group feel. I just presumed you were not basing all of this on what people on Languish say.
I think Berkut lives in upstate New York. Running into Canadians probably isn't that rare up there.
Quote from: Grallon on August 28, 2011, 01:45:35 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 28, 2011, 12:05:21 AM
...
In fact Quebec has never been a net contributor to equalization since the entire concept was invented. It's not surprising that you just want to waive your hands and ignore these facts.
There are reasons to become independant other than getting wealthier. And one has to be willing to make sacrifices in order to reach one's goals. Besides Quebecers could use some hardship... they've become far too complacent.
G.
Is anyone actually trying to prevent you from leaving? I mean besides the people of Quebec. The situation seems similar to that of Ireland, who's founders knew that they would suffer economically from leaving Britain, they did so willingly though, and Ireland struggled economically for decades. Of Course their grievances were a bit more concrete and things like the famine was still in living memory.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 28, 2011, 03:23:47 PM
Is anyone actually trying to prevent you from leaving?
IIRC in each of the referendum votes the Separatist complaint is that the Federalist side used money and support from outside Quebec. So I think the answer, at least from the Separatist side, is yes.
Quote from: Grallon on August 28, 2011, 01:45:35 PM
Besides Quebecers could use some hardship... they've become far too complacent.
G.
it's the Facal theory. But I no longer subscribe to this idea. I think the left has way too much power over the political action, and we need to restore order&economy before moving forward. Kinda like building the foundation before mounting the walls on your house.
@CC:
Federal over-spending was documented. And there's the whole sponsorship scandal thing, wich you seem to have forgotten.
It would have been more cost-efficient for you guys to let Quebec go in 1995, instead of trying everything to discourage this idea.
Quote from: viper37 on August 29, 2011, 12:14:02 PM
@CC:
Federal over-spending was documented. And there's the whole sponsorship scandal thing, wich you seem to have forgotten.
I know you can read English well so your post in reponse to mine is a bit perplexing.
Quote from: viper37 on August 26, 2011, 04:26:05 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 26, 2011, 03:24:23 PM
For example, take the funding of religious schools in Ontario. Is there any really sensible reason why Catholic schools are fully funded, but (say) Jewish or Muslim schools are not? Why are Catholics considered more worthy of state support?
They are publicly funded, so long as they teach the province's curriculum.
Quote
I understand the historical reasons why this is so, but it makes no frigging sense in the present day. A Jew or a muslim is a taxpayer and a citizen just like a Catholic. Either all religious schools should be funded (based on some eligibility criteria) or none should be.
In Quebec, public schools are no longer seperated on a religious basis, only language basis.
Muslim and Jewish schools can receive funding, even if they are private (60% public funding for all private schools), though they have to abide by the basics of the Education Department. That means no creationism, and no "preparation to be a good wife" stuff.
Then Quebec arranges this matter more sensibly than Ontario does.
Quote from: Grallon on August 28, 2011, 01:45:35 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 28, 2011, 12:05:21 AM
...
In fact Quebec has never been a net contributor to equalization since the entire concept was invented. It's not surprising that you just want to waive your hands and ignore these facts.
There are reasons to become independant other than getting wealthier. And one has to be willing to make sacrifices in order to reach one's goals. Besides Quebecers could use some hardship... they've become far too complacent.
G.
Save us from "patriots" who wish hardship on their own people to make them more patriotic! :D
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 29, 2011, 12:17:09 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 29, 2011, 12:14:02 PM
@CC:
Federal over-spending was documented. And there's the whole sponsorship scandal thing, wich you seem to have forgotten.
I know you can read English well so your post in reponse to mine is a bit perplexing.
I tought you were implying this was all a seperatist invention... I have misread, then. :)
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2011, 01:14:15 PM
Quote from: Grallon on August 28, 2011, 01:45:35 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 28, 2011, 12:05:21 AM
...
In fact Quebec has never been a net contributor to equalization since the entire concept was invented. It's not surprising that you just want to waive your hands and ignore these facts.
There are reasons to become independant other than getting wealthier. And one has to be willing to make sacrifices in order to reach one's goals. Besides Quebecers could use some hardship... they've become far too complacent.
G.
Save us from "patriots" who wish hardship on their own people to make them more patriotic! :D
Apparently Grallon has someone to vote for in the next provincial election.
QuoteThe leader of an as-yet-unnamed but already popular political party wants Quebec's language police to crackdown on Montreal merchants who refuse to speak French.
François Legault, who earlier this year launched the right-leaning Coalition pour l'avenir du Québec, released language-protection proposals on Monday. "Each Quebecker has a responsibility to ensure that the language of commerce is French," the former Parti Québécois cabinet minister said.
So he wants people to follow the law? :mellow:
Quote from: Zoupa on August 29, 2011, 04:02:46 PM
So he wants people to follow the law? :mellow:
You are one of those just following orders types arent you?
or should I have used ?? at the end?
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 29, 2011, 03:52:59 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2011, 01:14:15 PM
Quote from: Grallon on August 28, 2011, 01:45:35 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 28, 2011, 12:05:21 AM
...
In fact Quebec has never been a net contributor to equalization since the entire concept was invented. It's not surprising that you just want to waive your hands and ignore these facts.
There are reasons to become independant other than getting wealthier. And one has to be willing to make sacrifices in order to reach one's goals. Besides Quebecers could use some hardship... they've become far too complacent.
G.
Save us from "patriots" who wish hardship on their own people to make them more patriotic! :D
Apparently Grallon has someone to vote for in the next provincial election.
QuoteThe leader of an as-yet-unnamed but already popular political party wants Quebec's language police to crackdown on Montreal merchants who refuse to speak French.
François Legault, who earlier this year launched the right-leaning Coalition pour l'avenir du Québec, released language-protection proposals on Monday. "Each Quebecker has a responsibility to ensure that the language of commerce is French," the former Parti Québécois cabinet minister said.
the article is quite misleading, as usual from everything related by Canadian medias.
Legault mostly wants Québécois to insist on using French in Montreal instead of switching to English as soon as they hear the language.
Just as you wouldn't try to speak Mandarin when walking in a Chinese restaurant.
I fail to see what's wrong with that.
[/quote]
Legault mostly wants Québécois to insist on using French in Montreal instead of switching to English as soon as they hear the language.
Just as you wouldn't try to speak Mandarin when walking in a Chinese restaurant.
[/quote]
Uh those aren't at all similar.
Quote from: viper37 on August 29, 2011, 04:27:18 PM
the article is quite misleading, as usual from everything related by Canadian medias.
Legault mostly wants Québécois to insist on using French in Montreal instead of switching to English as soon as they hear the language.
Just as you wouldn't try to speak Mandarin when walking in a Chinese restaurant.
I fail to see what's wrong with that.
:huh:
My first reaction to that - in what possible way is it Legault's business, or any politico's business, what *I* (or anyone) choose to speak in a Chinese restaurant, or any other private interaction I or any other person choose to have?
Surely "butt out and mind yer own business" is the only rational response to such an importunity?
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2011, 04:38:58 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 29, 2011, 04:27:18 PM
the article is quite misleading, as usual from everything related by Canadian medias.
Legault mostly wants Québécois to insist on using French in Montreal instead of switching to English as soon as they hear the language.
Just as you wouldn't try to speak Mandarin when walking in a Chinese restaurant.
I fail to see what's wrong with that.
:huh:
My first reaction to that - in what possible way is it Legault's business, or any politico's business, what *I* (or anyone) choose to speak in a Chinese restaurant, or any other private interaction I or any other person choose to have?
Surely "butt out and mind yer own business" is the only rational response to such an importunity?
Pretty sure they're not talking about private conversations.
Quote from: Barrister on August 29, 2011, 04:42:26 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2011, 04:38:58 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 29, 2011, 04:27:18 PM
the article is quite misleading, as usual from everything related by Canadian medias.
Legault mostly wants Québécois to insist on using French in Montreal instead of switching to English as soon as they hear the language.
Just as you wouldn't try to speak Mandarin when walking in a Chinese restaurant.
I fail to see what's wrong with that.
:huh:
My first reaction to that - in what possible way is it Legault's business, or any politico's business, what *I* (or anyone) choose to speak in a Chinese restaurant, or any other private interaction I or any other person choose to have?
Surely "butt out and mind yer own business" is the only rational response to such an importunity?
Pretty sure they're not talking about private conversations.
Further, I'd think you'd not find it out of the ordinary for a politician associated with a cause to exhort people to support that cause ("recycle!, etc. etc.")?
Quote from: Barrister on August 29, 2011, 04:42:26 PM
Pretty sure they're not talking about private conversations.
What other sort of conversation does one typically hold in a Chinese restaurant? :hmm:
Quote from: ulmont on August 29, 2011, 04:54:17 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 29, 2011, 04:42:26 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2011, 04:38:58 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 29, 2011, 04:27:18 PM
the article is quite misleading, as usual from everything related by Canadian medias.
Legault mostly wants Québécois to insist on using French in Montreal instead of switching to English as soon as they hear the language.
Just as you wouldn't try to speak Mandarin when walking in a Chinese restaurant.
I fail to see what's wrong with that.
:huh:
My first reaction to that - in what possible way is it Legault's business, or any politico's business, what *I* (or anyone) choose to speak in a Chinese restaurant, or any other private interaction I or any other person choose to have?
Surely "butt out and mind yer own business" is the only rational response to such an importunity?
Pretty sure they're not talking about private conversations.
Further, I'd think you'd not find it out of the ordinary for a politician associated with a cause to exhort people to support that cause ("recycle!, etc. etc.")?
How can that be "further"? Are you of the opinion that it *is* about private conversations (and not really a big deal, being equivalent to "please recycle") or that it is *not* about private conversations?
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2011, 04:55:12 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 29, 2011, 04:42:26 PM
Pretty sure they're not talking about private conversations.
What other sort of conversation does one typically hold in a Chinese restaurant? :hmm:
The conversations with the waiter? :hmm:
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2011, 05:02:11 PM
How can that be "further"? Are you of the opinion that it *is* about private conversations (and not really a big deal, being equivalent to "please recycle") or that it is *not* about private conversations?
I am of the opinion that it is about conversations between restaurant attendees and staff at the same restaurant. These are conversations between private parties occurring in a semi-public space in the context of a commercial transaction. I don't consider them "private," but I do consider the call to be no more than to "please recycle."
Quote from: viper37 on August 29, 2011, 04:27:18 PM
the article is quite misleading, as usual from everything related by Canadian medias.
Legault mostly wants Québécois to insist on using French in Montreal instead of switching to English as soon as they hear the language.
Just as you wouldn't try to speak Mandarin when walking in a Chinese restaurant.
I fail to see what's wrong with that.
Either you wrote this wrong or I'm reading this wrong. Please clarify.
Quote from: Barrister on August 29, 2011, 05:11:07 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2011, 04:55:12 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 29, 2011, 04:42:26 PM
Pretty sure they're not talking about private conversations.
What other sort of conversation does one typically hold in a Chinese restaurant? :hmm:
The conversations with the waiter? :hmm:
Then it sounds like the 7-up thing in reverse. If I go in to a restaurant in Quebec and try to order something in English the waiter
shouldn't switch to English if he knows it? That can't be right.
Having been to Quebec, I just speak English. And if I get a funny look, I repeat it REAL LOUD AND SLOW. Then get run over by insane Montreal drivers.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 29, 2011, 06:41:57 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 29, 2011, 04:27:18 PM
the article is quite misleading, as usual from everything related by Canadian medias.
Legault mostly wants Québécois to insist on using French in Montreal instead of switching to English as soon as they hear the language.
Just as you wouldn't try to speak Mandarin when walking in a Chinese restaurant.
I fail to see what's wrong with that.
Either you wrote this wrong or I'm reading this wrong. Please clarify.
I had to read it a couple of times to get something I thought I understood. As I understand it, it works something like:
"If you walked into a Chinese restaurant and heard people speaking in Mandarin, you wouldn't automatically switch to Mandarin. Similarly, if you walk into any restaurant and hear people speaking in English, you shouldn't automatically switch to English."
The flaw, of course, is that a lot of Mandarin speakers actually would automatically switch to Mandarin if they heard it on entering a Chinese restaurant.
But I can't speak either Mandarin or French. :( If the people at the restaurant refused to switch to English (even if they actually knew it!), I'd probably leave.
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2011, 12:13:11 PM
Yeah...I don't know if Languish is a good barometer for what the general population of a group feel. I just presumed you were not basing all of this on what people on Languish say.
I speak for South Carolina.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 29, 2011, 07:53:36 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2011, 12:13:11 PM
Yeah...I don't know if Languish is a good barometer for what the general population of a group feel. I just presumed you were not basing all of this on what people on Languish say.
I speak for South Carolina.
Send me a coconut cake from the Peninsula Grill. Thanx.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 29, 2011, 06:55:54 PM
...I repeat it REAL LOUD AND SLOW. Then get run over by insane Montreal drivers.
Oh I'd run over you real slow. :perv:
G.
Creepy
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 29, 2011, 04:17:35 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on August 29, 2011, 04:02:46 PM
So he wants people to follow the law? :mellow:
You are one of those just following orders types arent you?
or should I have used ?? at the end?
What?
I'm having a hard time seeing what your point is. I also don't understand your last line.
Are you tired, depressed, drunk? Maybe try again in the morning. :console:
Quote from: Barrister on August 29, 2011, 05:11:07 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2011, 04:55:12 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 29, 2011, 04:42:26 PM
Pretty sure they're not talking about private conversations.
What other sort of conversation does one typically hold in a Chinese restaurant? :hmm:
The conversations with the waiter? :hmm:
And in your mind, that's not a "private" conversation? :hmm:
Quote from: ulmont on August 29, 2011, 05:20:12 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2011, 05:02:11 PM
How can that be "further"? Are you of the opinion that it *is* about private conversations (and not really a big deal, being equivalent to "please recycle") or that it is *not* about private conversations?
I am of the opinion that it is about conversations between restaurant attendees and staff at the same restaurant. These are conversations between private parties occurring in a semi-public space in the context of a commercial transaction. I don't consider them "private," but I do consider the call to be no more than to "please recycle."
I disagree on both counts: a conversation between a restaurant attendee and staff is still a "private" conversation; and it is in no way analogous to "please recycle". Your choice of recycling for the analogy demonstrates the difference pretty clearly.
Some actions have public consequences - such as garbage collection. They generally involve public, social funding. Thus the public, through politicians, has an interest in the matter, and even in private behaviour that affects the matter - such as recycling.
In contrast, a private conversation between private, non-governmental-employees is a private matter between them. As long as the
content of that conversation isn't some sort of criminal conspiracy, that conversation ought not to be anyone's business but the people involved, as long as there is consent. It is no business of anyone but the waitstaff and the customer if the two of them
mutually decide to speak in English, French, Cantonese or Swahili. Hence the rational reaction of "mind yer own business" to governmental attempts to control it, which doesn't really work for garbage collection. Garbage collection, by contrast, really *is* partly societies' business, for the simple reason that society pays for it. Society is not paying for the customer's meal at the restaurant.
I swear, this argument will make a very Berkut out of me. :lol: :berkut:
Quote from: Razgovory on August 29, 2011, 06:47:06 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 29, 2011, 05:11:07 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2011, 04:55:12 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 29, 2011, 04:42:26 PM
Pretty sure they're not talking about private conversations.
What other sort of conversation does one typically hold in a Chinese restaurant? :hmm:
The conversations with the waiter? :hmm:
Then it sounds like the 7-up thing in reverse. If I go in to a restaurant in Quebec and try to order something in English the waiter shouldn't switch to English if he knows it? That can't be right.
Moreover, that switching to English should be officially discouraged by politicians in some way, if not positively made illegal (this point still is not clear), even if both the staff and the customer *want* to do it.
Sounds crazy I know - but many, for some reason unknown to me, are defending this as rational.
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 08:28:09 AM
Some actions have public consequences - such as garbage collection. They generally involve public, social funding. Thus the public, through politicians, has an interest in the matter, and even in private behaviour that affects the matter - such as recycling.
The disappearance of French would seem to be a public consequence.
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 08:28:09 AMHence the rational reaction of "mind yer own business" to governmental attempts to control it, which doesn't really work for garbage collection.
There's quite a large gap between crazy canuck's description of the proposal and viper's. In viper's quote, there was no attempt at control, but pure exhortation of desired behavior.
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 08:15:51 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 29, 2011, 05:11:07 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2011, 04:55:12 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 29, 2011, 04:42:26 PM
Pretty sure they're not talking about private conversations.
What other sort of conversation does one typically hold in a Chinese restaurant? :hmm:
The conversations with the waiter? :hmm:
And in your mind, that's not a "private" conversation? :hmm:
No. It's a commercial conversation.
Quote from: Barrister on August 30, 2011, 09:07:26 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 08:15:51 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 29, 2011, 05:11:07 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2011, 04:55:12 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 29, 2011, 04:42:26 PM
Pretty sure they're not talking about private conversations.
What other sort of conversation does one typically hold in a Chinese restaurant? :hmm:
The conversations with the waiter? :hmm:
And in your mind, that's not a "private" conversation? :hmm:
No. It's a commercial conversation.
Commercial conversations cannot be private?
Are we seriously debating whether two people should be allowed to converse in a language of their mutual choice when it does not effect anyone else in any way whatsoever?
I think this argument has very clearly jumped the shark. When it becomes so absurd as to suggest that two people should be
forced (or even "encouraged") to speak in a particular language even if neither of them wants to...
I have never heard of a commercial conversation. Is that a Canadian law thing?
Quote from: The Brain on August 30, 2011, 09:40:16 AM
I have never heard of a commercial conversation. Is that a Canadian law thing?
Must be. I thought we were talking about private vice public, but apparently there is another category...
Quote from: Berkut on August 30, 2011, 09:39:25 AM
I think this argument has very clearly jumped the shark. When it becomes so absurd as to suggest that two people should be forced (or even "encouraged") to speak in a particular language even if neither of them wants to...
I tend to agree that when people start saying that politicians can't call for desired behavior the shark has been jumped, yes.
Quote from: Berkut on August 30, 2011, 09:39:25 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 30, 2011, 09:07:26 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 08:15:51 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 29, 2011, 05:11:07 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2011, 04:55:12 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 29, 2011, 04:42:26 PM
Pretty sure they're not talking about private conversations.
What other sort of conversation does one typically hold in a Chinese restaurant? :hmm:
The conversations with the waiter? :hmm:
And in your mind, that's not a "private" conversation? :hmm:
No. It's a commercial conversation.
Commercial conversations cannot be private?
Are we seriously debating whether two people should be allowed to converse in a language of their mutual choice when it does not effect anyone else in any way whatsoever?
Our Quebecois posters can correct me if I'm wrong, but it isn't that two people engaged in commerce can not speak in any language - but rather that the business must be able to provide service in French.
And it does effect others. It effects the "French" nature of the province. The more conversations in English, the less French is spoken.
Quote from: ulmont on August 30, 2011, 08:51:00 AMThere's quite a large gap between crazy canuck's description of the proposal and viper's. In viper's quote, there was no attempt at control, but pure exhortation of desired behavior.
Legault said:
a) That the law stipulates customers have the right to be served in French. Many places now hire unilingual anglophone employees because they know they can get away with it. This leads many customers who know English to switch to English in the interest of expediency rather than complain to have the law enforced.
b) And therefore he stated that it would be nice if francophones didn't switch automatically to English in such circumstances.
Quote from: ulmont on August 29, 2011, 06:57:37 PM
The flaw, of course, is that a lot of Mandarin speakers actually would automatically switch to Mandarin if they heard it on entering a Chinese restaurant.
it's not about anglophones speaking to one another in their language. It's about francophones using English by default instead of using French. Emphasize personal responsibility instead of bitching at the government not doing its work.
Quote from: Berkut on August 30, 2011, 09:41:57 AM
Quote from: The Brain on August 30, 2011, 09:40:16 AM
I have never heard of a commercial conversation. Is that a Canadian law thing?
Must be. I thought we were talking about private vice public, but apparently there is another category...
This is a little outside my area of expertise, but the SCC has recognized that commercial speech is given somewhat less deference than other kinds of speech. Thus there are more restrictions on advertising and packaging than would otherwise be allowed.
Quote from: Barrister on August 30, 2011, 09:50:14 AM
Our Quebecois posters can correct me if I'm wrong, but it isn't that two people engaged in commerce can not speak in any language - but rather that the business must be able to provide service in French.
That's exactly it.
I am shocked, shocked, that the most unfavourable spin has been given to this story.
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2011, 04:38:58 PM
:huh:
My first reaction to that - in what possible way is it Legault's business, or any politico's business, what *I* (or anyone) choose to speak in a Chinese restaurant, or any other private interaction I or any other person choose to have?
Surely "butt out and mind yer own business" is the only rational response to such an importunity?
Tell me Malthus, if I believed the
Elders of Sion to be an historical, truthful document, what could you tell me to convince me that I was wrong? :wacko:
You still believe there's a language police taking measurements of signs and jailing people for not speaking French. What is it I can say to you to convince you that you are wrong and see this whole issue with the distorted eyes of the anti-French movement of the old British Empire?
Frankly, I'm at loss. It's like you're trying on purpose to distort the facts. It's like you truly want to believe that Quebec is a Nazi State that will jail English speakers on sight.
So tell me, why should I bother answering this? Would you answer me if I tought Jews existed only to control the world through secret manipulation?
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 30, 2011, 09:51:09 AM
b) And therefore he stated that it would be nice if francophones didn't switch automatically to English in such circumstances.
apparently, lots of francophone staff will use English even when speaking to francophone clients, only to swtich back to French when talking to one another. Seems to be a Montreal problem.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 29, 2011, 06:55:54 PM
Having been to Quebec, I just speak English. And if I get a funny look, I repeat it REAL LOUD AND SLOW.
it's the best way to make them understand you're Amercain :P
QuoteThen get run over by insane Montreal drivers.
everybody is insane in Montreal, not just the drivers :P
Quote from: ulmont on August 30, 2011, 08:51:00 AM
The disappearance of French would seem to be a public consequence.
Anything can be made a "public consequence" by making it symbolic of cultural erosion.
Chosing to eat at McDonalds = "disappearance of our national culture" = "public consequence". Therefore, the government has an interest in interfering with one's choice to eat at McDonalds.
Playing videogames = "erosion of our health national pastimes" = "public coinsequence". Therefore, the government has an interest in interfering with one's choice to play videogames.
The problem with this reasoning, of course, is that there is nothing it *cannot* apply to, there is nothing that is not potentially of "public consequence" to somebody.
QuoteThere's quite a large gap between crazy canuck's description of the proposal and viper's. In viper's quote, there was no attempt at control, but pure exhortation of desired behavior.
So far, the actual details of what is proposed aren't clear. Nonetheless, even assuming it is nothing more than exhortation, the reasonable response is the same: "mind yer own business". Same as if some politico wanted to "publicly exhort" people to refrain from using the internet because it makes you stupid or erodes your culture.
Quote from: Barrister on August 30, 2011, 09:07:26 AM
No. It's a commercial conversation.
Where are you getting this distinction from?
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 10:09:15 AM
Quote from: ulmont on August 30, 2011, 08:51:00 AM
The disappearance of French would seem to be a public consequence.
Anything can be made a "public consequence" by making it symbolic of cultural erosion.
Chosing to eat at McDonalds = "disappearance of our national culture" = "public consequence". Therefore, the government has an interest in interfering with one's choice to eat at McDonalds.
Playing videogames = "erosion of our health national pastimes" = "public coinsequence". Therefore, the government has an interest in interfering with one's choice to play videogames.
The problem with this reasoning, of course, is that there is nothing it *cannot* apply to, there is nothing that is not potentially of "public consequence" to somebody.
Are you seriously saying that a politician should not be allowed to say "Eat Healthy!" or "Play outside!"?
http://www.theroot.com/views/michelle-obama-s-healthy-food-campaign
http://www.fitness.gov/about_history.htm
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 10:09:15 AM
So far, the actual details of what is proposed aren't clear. Nonetheless, even assuming it is nothing more than exhortation, the reasonable response is the same: "mind yer own business". Same as if some politico wanted to "publicly exhort" people to refrain from using the internet because it makes you stupid or erodes your culture.
*shrug* Your response seems a bit more than proportionate, which would be to ignore the call.
Quote from: viper37 on August 30, 2011, 10:00:30 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2011, 04:38:58 PM
:huh:
My first reaction to that - in what possible way is it Legault's business, or any politico's business, what *I* (or anyone) choose to speak in a Chinese restaurant, or any other private interaction I or any other person choose to have?
Surely "butt out and mind yer own business" is the only rational response to such an importunity?
Tell me Malthus, if I believed the Elders of Sion to be an historical, truthful document, what could you tell me to convince me that I was wrong? :wacko:
You still believe there's a language police taking measurements of signs and jailing people for not speaking French. What is it I can say to you to convince you that you are wrong and see this whole issue with the distorted eyes of the anti-French movement of the old British Empire?
Frankly, I'm at loss. It's like you're trying on purpose to distort the facts. It's like you truly want to believe that Quebec is a Nazi State that will jail English speakers on sight.
So tell me, why should I bother answering this? Would you answer me if I tought Jews existed only to control the world through secret manipulation?
What does your offensive screed have to do with my reaction that a politico "exhorting" people to speak in one language rather than another in their private conversations is absurd, and the only rational reaction to it is to tell him to mind his own business? :huh:
I swear, you are losing all sense of proportion. Exactly what "facts" have I distorted in my quote? Please identify even one. Nor am I comparing Quebec to a Nazi state. :wacko:
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 10:10:39 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 30, 2011, 09:07:26 AM
No. It's a commercial conversation.
Where are you getting this distinction from?
Irwin Toy v Quebec for starters.
Commercial speech is treated differently from other kinds of speech.
Quote from: ulmont on August 30, 2011, 10:14:11 AM
Are you seriously saying that a politician should not be allowed to say "Eat Healthy!" or "Play outside!"?
http://www.theroot.com/views/michelle-obama-s-healthy-food-campaign
http://www.fitness.gov/about_history.htm
No, what I'm saying is that not *all* private activity is "of public consequence". Are you saying everything private is of public consequence?
Quote
*shrug* Your response seems a bit more than proportionate, which would be to ignore the call.
What, I'm not allowed to point out in conversation I think a politician has made an absurd and intrusive call? Note I'm not exactly manning the barracades over this. Though I am being told by Viper that my stance is the equivalent of calling Quebec a Nazi state, so readers can judge for themselves who is making a "disproportionate response". ;)
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 10:21:07 AM
No, what I'm saying is that not *all* private activity is "of public consequence". Are you saying everything private is of public consequence?
Well there is a lot of private activity that is "of public consequence".
However just because something is "of public consequence" does not mean that any infringement of rights is automatically warranted. Surely you're familiar with the
Oakes test?
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 30, 2011, 09:51:09 AM
Quote from: ulmont on August 30, 2011, 08:51:00 AMThere's quite a large gap between crazy canuck's description of the proposal and viper's. In viper's quote, there was no attempt at control, but pure exhortation of desired behavior.
Legault said:
a) That the law stipulates customers have the right to be served in French. Many places now hire unilingual anglophone employees because they know they can get away with it. This leads many customers who know English to switch to English in the interest of expediency rather than complain to have the law enforced.
b) And therefore he stated that it would be nice if francophones didn't switch automatically to English in such circumstances.
Nothing at all wrong with that then.
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 10:21:07 AM
No, what I'm saying is that not *all* private activity is "of public consequence". Are you saying everything private is of public consequence?
While I'm certain that there is private activity that could not reasonably be the subject of a politician's exhortations, I fail to see anything wrong with calls for healthier eating, playing outside, less time on the Internet, dinners with the family, motherhood, America, and apple pie...or speaking French in Quebec.
Quote from: Barrister on August 30, 2011, 10:17:02 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 10:10:39 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 30, 2011, 09:07:26 AM
No. It's a commercial conversation.
Where are you getting this distinction from?
Irwin Toy v Quebec for starters.
Commercial speech is treated differently from other kinds of speech.
No, it isn't. You are simply wrong on this point.
QuoteWhen faced with an alleged violation of the guarantee of freedom of expression, the first step in the analysis is to determine whether the plaintiff's activity falls within the sphere of conduct protected by the guarantee. Activity which (1) does not convey or attempt to convey a meaning, and thus has no content of expression or (2) which conveys a meaning but through a violent form of expression, is not within the protected sphere of conduct. If the activity falls within the protected sphere of conduct, the second step in the analysis is to determine whether the purpose or effect of the government action in issue was to restrict freedom of expression. If the government has aimed to control attempts to convey a meaning either by directly restricting the content of expression or by restricting a form of expression tied to content, its purpose trenches upon the guarantee. Where, on the other hand, it aims only to control the physical consequences of particular conduct, its purpose does not trench upon the guarantee. In determining whether the government's purpose aims simply at harmful physical consequences, the question becomes: does the mischief consist in the meaning of the activity or the purported influence that meaning has on the behaviour of others, or does it consist, rather, only in the direct physical result of the activity. If the government's purpose was not to restrict free expression, the plaintiff can still claim that the effect of the government's action was to restrict her expression. To make this claim, the plaintiff must at least identify the meaning being conveyed and how it relates to the pursuit of truth, participation in the community, or individual self-fulfillment and human flourishing.
In the instant case, the plaintiff's activity is not excluded from the sphere of conduct protected by freedom of expression. The government's purpose in enacting ss. 248 and 249 of the Consumer Protection Act and in promulgating ss. 87 to 91 of the Regulation respecting the application of the Consumer Protection Act was to prohibit particular content of expression in the name of protecting children. These provisions therefore constitute limitations to s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter and s. 3 of the Quebec Charter. They fall to be justified under s. 1 of the Canadian Charter and s. 9.1 of the Quebec Charter.
http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=Irwin+Toy+v+Quebec+&language=en&searchTitle=Search+all+CanLII+Databases&path=/en/ca/scc/doc/1989/1989canlii87/1989canlii87.html
Quote from: Barrister on August 30, 2011, 10:26:02 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 10:21:07 AM
No, what I'm saying is that not *all* private activity is "of public consequence". Are you saying everything private is of public consequence?
Well there is a lot of private activity that is "of public consequence".
However just because something is "of public consequence" does not mean that any infringement of rights is automatically warranted. Surely you're familiar with the Oakes test?
Huh? Where did I say that any infringement of rights is automatically warranted? :huh:
Quote from: ulmont on August 30, 2011, 10:31:12 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 10:21:07 AM
No, what I'm saying is that not *all* private activity is "of public consequence". Are you saying everything private is of public consequence?
While I'm certain that there is private activity that could not reasonably be the subject of a politician's exhortations, I fail to see anything wrong with calls for healthier eating, playing outside, less time on the Internet, dinners with the family, motherhood, America, and apple pie...or speaking French in Quebec.
And my reactions to politicians exhortations as to what I or others choose to do in private ... is for him/her to mind his/her own business - where something that is value-neutral is treated as offensive for purposes of exhortation. "You all should stop looking so gay, to preserve our manly national image".
Read the case more closely Malthus. I never said that commercial speech was given no protection. Rather, I said that it was given somewhat less deference. In Irwin Toy the court found that the company's 2(b) rights were violated, but that the violation was justified under the Oakes test.
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 10:15:34 AM
I swear, you are losing all sense of proportion. Exactly what "facts" have I distorted in my quote? Please identify even one. Nor am I comparing Quebec to a Nazi state. :wacko:
all your post Malthus, all of it, when it comes to Quebec.
You have some kind of allergy to people affirming their identity, when it comes to Quebec.
Nobody is forcing you to speak one language or another, yet, this what you assume.
You conveniently ignore all the facts, imagine the worst possible spin because you like to think Quebec is evil and trampling the rights of these poor Anglo-Quebecers.
Legault simply said that French speaking Québécois should use French first, not English, nor even try to switch to English when in a commercial space. If English merchants start losing customers, they'll react and hire bilingual staff or lose business to those who do. If we don't do anything and expect the government to solve all our problems, that simply won't work.
That's all that was said.
But here you came, and said it was your God Given right to speak the language of your choice to anyone you meet in a store, as if that was under threat.
It's always, always the same with you and Quebec.
For fuck sake, the next time you visit Quebec, get to a city down south instead of staying in Temiscamingue! You might get a different portrait than what your media portrays (Jane Wong and Barbara Kay, among others :yuk: ).
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 10:37:44 AM
And my reactions to politicians exhortations as to what I or others choose to do in private ... is for him/her to mind his/her own business - where something that is value-neutral is treated as offensive for purposes of exhortation. "You all should stop looking so gay, to preserve our manly national image".
it's not private. It's public space, commercial space. You can't pee in a shopping center's mall, even you like it. You can't shit in small streets. Fuck, there is an even worst thing in this Canada of ours, threatening our individual rights, trampling us under the feets of this Big Evil Gov't: We can't walk naked in the streets. Awful. Is there no end to what we can't do with our lives? Next thing, you'll tell me cities are restricting commercial advertising! Shocking!
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 10:37:44 AM
And my reactions to politicians exhortations as to what I or others choose to do in private ... is for him/her to mind his/her own business - where something that is value-neutral is treated as offensive for purposes of exhortation. "You all should stop looking so gay, to preserve our manly national image".
that's a bullshit comparison, you know it, and it's symptomatic of what I was describing earlier.
Quote from: Barrister on August 30, 2011, 10:39:22 AM
Read the case more closely Malthus. I never said that commercial speech was given no protection. Rather, I said that it was given somewhat less deference. In Irwin Toy the court found that the company's 2(b) rights were violated, but that the violation was justified under the Oakes test.
Yes, legislation that put limits on commercial advertising were found justified under section 1 - but there is no such thing as "commercial speech" that is treated by the court as different from "private speech" (which was, as you may recall, your cointention), and somehow less worthy of protection. Indeed, as the quote states: "... the plaintiff's activity is not excluded from the sphere of conduct protected by freedom of expression".
All this means is that the government was found to have a reasonable pressing objective to limit freedom of expression - to protect children. Not that the expression itself isn't the same as other sorts of expression (they say the opposite!).
Much less does this case demonstrate that speech between a waiter and a customer would be "commercial speech" and thus somehow treated differently than "private speech".
Quote from: viper37 on August 30, 2011, 10:40:37 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 10:15:34 AM
I swear, you are losing all sense of proportion. Exactly what "facts" have I distorted in my quote? Please identify even one. Nor am I comparing Quebec to a Nazi state. :wacko:
all your post Malthus, all of it, when it comes to Quebec.
You have some kind of allergy to people affirming their identity, when it comes to Quebec.
Nobody is forcing you to speak one language or another, yet, this what you assume.
You conveniently ignore all the facts, imagine the worst possible spin because you like to think Quebec is evil and trampling the rights of these poor Anglo-Quebecers.
Legault simply said that French speaking Québécois should use French first, not English, nor even try to switch to English when in a commercial space. If English merchants start losing customers, they'll react and hire bilingual staff or lose business to those who do. If we don't do anything and expect the government to solve all our problems, that simply won't work.
That's all that was said.
But here you came, and said it was your God Given right to speak the language of your choice to anyone you meet in a store, as if that was under threat.
It's always, always the same with you and Quebec.
For fuck sake, the next time you visit Quebec, get to a city down south instead of staying in Temiscamingue! You might get a different portrait than what your media portrays (Jane Wong and Barbara Kay, among others :yuk: ).
Just as I thought - you can't identify any one single fact I'm "distorting". Just more made-up stuff and abuse.
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 10:09:15 AM
Chosing to eat at McDonalds = "disappearance of our national culture" = "public consequence". Therefore, the government has an interest in interfering with one's choice to eat at McDonalds.
So, politicians should never express desired behavior of their population... Interesting.
So we can remove the "Royal" from the army description, then? And you tell our politicians to mind their own business? Oups, no you didn't... that wasn't important, then.
Quote
Playing videogames = "erosion of our health national pastimes" = "public coinsequence". Therefore, the government has an interest in interfering with one's choice to play videogames.
Wich is kinda normal. Government pays for health care. There's an incentive about people doing sports.
If, in our culture, fat people were worshipped, there could be an incentive for the government to try and change our minds (wich has happenned in such cultures). Would that be evil?
Quote
The problem with this reasoning, of course, is that there is nothing it *cannot* apply to, there is nothing that is not potentially of "public consequence" to somebody.
We used to have the ads when I was a kid, ads about doing sports, wich was good for your health. It came from the Federal Government.
You're slightly older than me, but you must certainly remember that? There were also these ads about being careful when playing, because unlike the robot we couldn't re-attach our arm if we lost it.
I shudder to think of this... you must have had a terrible childhood. You must have felt trapped by Evil policitians telling you what to do. How awful that must have been for you.
Quote
So far, the actual details of what is proposed aren't clear. Nonetheless, even assuming it is nothing more than exhortation, the reasonable response is the same: "mind yer own business". Same as if some politico wanted to "publicly exhort" people to refrain from using the internet because it makes you stupid or erodes your culture.
If internet was a problem, and there were people asking the government to legislate on the use of internet, via a quota of internet hours per day, I think it might be good for the politicos to remind everyone that moderation is better in everything, that parents should promote sports for their kids, and that we ourselves hold the solution to this perceived problem.
I wouldn't see anything wrong with that. But apparently, you do. What's the expression again? "A chip on your shoulder", I believe. Be careful, it's gonna crush you.
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 10:50:23 AM
Just as I thought - you can't identify any one single fact I'm "distorting". Just more made-up stuff and abuse.
of for fuck sake, you're the one panicking at the tought of Francos speaking french instead of english in a Sears. Don't lecture me, please. :rolleyes:
Quote from: viper37 on August 30, 2011, 10:56:11 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 10:50:23 AM
Just as I thought - you can't identify any one single fact I'm "distorting". Just more made-up stuff and abuse.
of for fuck sake, you're the one panicking at the tought of Francos speaking french instead of english in a Sears. Don't lecture me, please. :rolleyes:
Huh, amusing because it's the exact *opposite* of what this is about - namely, your politician panicking because Francos are speaking ENGLISH instead of French in a Sears! :lol:
And as for "lecture" - you made the assertion, you back it up. Or not.
Quote from: Barrister on August 30, 2011, 10:39:22 AM
Read the case more closely Malthus. I never said that commercial speech was given no protection. Rather, I said that it was given somewhat less deference. In Irwin Toy the court found that the company's 2(b) rights were violated, but that the violation was justified under the Oakes test.
Bit of a backtrack there BB. You said commercial speech is treated differently. That is simply not so. Both "commericial" and other speech is protected under the Charter. It is just that in the circumstances of Irwin Toy the the Charter breach was justified because of the particular type of advertising in question - it was of import to the majority that the advertising in question could be directed to the parents of the children and so the Court thought the breach was minimal.
The Court never said commercial speech was less important as a rule of law.
But all that is beside the point. You are engaging in semantics to defend the State intervening in private matters. Oex defends this on the basis of employers hiring anglophone only employees in Montreal - where a large English speaking population is located. I have read the platform statements of the new party and they dont sound nearly so benign as all that. They want to prevent Francophones from attending Anglophone educational institutions. They want to prevent any immigrant from attending an Anglophone educational institution. They want to reduce immigration to the province.
In short they want to make French the universal language of Quebec by State decree. It is in short Grallon's wet dream.
edit: on the topic of protection of commercial communications you might want to reflect on the fact that the Ford case struck down the initial Language Laws in Quebec..... Those were restrictions on commercial communications.
Quote from: viper37 on August 30, 2011, 10:56:11 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 10:50:23 AM
Just as I thought - you can't identify any one single fact I'm "distorting". Just more made-up stuff and abuse.
of for fuck sake, you're the one panicking at the tought of Francos speaking french instead of english in a Sears. Don't lecture me, please. :rolleyes:
Uhhh, that is not the case at all. He is commenting on a politician apparently panicking that people might speak English instead of French. I am pretty sure (and Malthus can correct me if I am wrong) Malthus really could not care less if people speak French...well, anywhere.
The issue is not people speaking French. It is people speaking English. I bet Malthus would not even care if two French people spoke French to one another in the nicest restaurant in downtown Toronto.
there's no panick from Legault. Only from the National Post, again.
Legault is simply expressing the 4th part of his proposed political program for his eventual party. Maybe he'll merge with the ADQ or go back to the PQ with the proposals, we don't know yet. That was simply a part of his proposals on culture.
Again, as with the other proposals, nothing really dramatic here, not much change from what is currently done and not working.
Quote from: viper37 on August 30, 2011, 11:52:05 AM
there's no panick from Legault. Only from the National Post, again.
Legault is simply expressing the 4th part of his proposed political program for his eventual party. Maybe he'll merge with the ADQ or go back to the PQ with the proposals, we don't know yet. That was simply a part of his proposals on culture.
Again, as with the other proposals, nothing really dramatic here, not much change from what is currently done and not working.
The story was from the Globe. Restricting the ability of French speakers to attend anglophone institutions and reducing immigration to prevent dilution of the French language are not dramatic steps in your view? They sound a lot like the racist rantings of a certain past PQ leader.
Indeed I read that Parizeau was literally lurking around some of these meetings.
The ideas to reduce immigration are just plain foolish. Immigration is one of the best ways to keep Quebec's culture and economy alive.
Nationalist parties = douchebags.
Quote from: Barrister on August 30, 2011, 12:09:28 PM
Immigration is one of the best ways to keep Quebec's culture and economy alive.
Hey even if they want to only take French speakers plenty of Africans and Haitians out there wanting a home...a really cold home...
Quote from: viper37 on August 30, 2011, 10:02:11 AMapparently, lots of francophone staff will use English even when speaking to francophone clients, only to swtich back to French when talking to one another. Seems to be a Montreal problem.
Well, my sister is an anglophone and she has a part-time retail job in Montreal - and she speaks French to her customers.
Just to provide an anecdote in the opposite direction.
My father just got back from Quebec City. He said it was pretty monolingually French...fortunately he speaks French and that seemed to please the Quebecois so much they heaped praise upon him.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 30, 2011, 12:07:34 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 30, 2011, 11:52:05 AM
there's no panick from Legault. Only from the National Post, again.
Legault is simply expressing the 4th part of his proposed political program for his eventual party. Maybe he'll merge with the ADQ or go back to the PQ with the proposals, we don't know yet. That was simply a part of his proposals on culture.
Again, as with the other proposals, nothing really dramatic here, not much change from what is currently done and not working.
The story was from the Globe. Restricting the ability of French speakers to attend anglophone institutions and reducing immigration to prevent dilution of the French language are not dramatic steps in your view? They sound a lot like the racist rantings of a certain past PQ leader.
He wants to double the budget of the Immigration ministry, and reduce the amount of immigrants arriving for 2 years while the ones here can learn french more easily. Right now only 51% of non-francophone immigrants are functional francophones. That's dismal.
The one about restricting the ability of francos to attend unilingual anglo schools is of course a lie on your part, or on the part of the Globe.
Anyone can attend any school in Qc, providing you have the money. Public schools are 99% francophone. We also have anglophone public schools to serve the historical anglophone community.
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2011, 12:21:58 PM
My father just got back from Quebec City. He said it was pretty monolingually French...fortunately he speaks French and that seemed to please the Quebecois so much they heaped praise upon him.
The problem is really centered around the downtown Montreal area. You walk into a store and get greeted by "How may I help you?" a huge majority of the time.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 30, 2011, 12:22:45 PM
The one about restricting the ability of francos to attend unilingual anglo schools is of course a lie on your part, or on the part of the Globe.
Anyone can attend any school in Qc, providing you have the money. Public schools are 99% francophone. We also have anglophone public schools to serve the historical anglophone community.
Zoupa, are you missing the point, or being deliberately obtuse?
The issue is one of restricting the ability of people to attend anglophone public schools.
Your comment is like saying "Anyone can drive any car they want, as long as they have the money". Well, that's kind of the point.
Hey Malthus (and CC, since I think you guys are in agreement) to what degree do you think it's reasonable for Quebec to enact policies to protect and promote the French language and Quebecois culture?
Is anything more than "government services must be provided in French" unreasonable? Or are there legitimate ways for the government to influence the language used in the public sphere, in your view? Or is it straight up up to the French language to sink or swim on its own, without any government action?
Quote from: Zoupa on August 30, 2011, 12:24:27 PM
You walk into a store and get greeted by "How may I help you?" a huge majority of the time.
I'd just walk right out. :mad:
Quote from: Barrister on August 30, 2011, 12:28:56 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on August 30, 2011, 12:22:45 PM
The one about restricting the ability of francos to attend unilingual anglo schools is of course a lie on your part, or on the part of the Globe.
Anyone can attend any school in Qc, providing you have the money. Public schools are 99% francophone. We also have anglophone public schools to serve the historical anglophone community.
Zoupa, are you missing the point, or being deliberately obtuse?
The issue is one of restricting the ability of people to attend anglophone public schools.
Your comment is like saying "Anyone can drive any car they want, as long as they have the money". Well, that's kind of the point.
I and others have told you guys this hundreds of times, and it's quite symptomatic of the great divide between us.
Quebec is a UNILINGUAL francophone nation. We provide public schools in english for the small historical minority that lives here, because we're enlightened balls of light.
France is a UNILINGUAL francophone country. How come you don't cry that people there can't get free schooling in english?
Quote from: Zoupa on August 30, 2011, 12:24:27 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2011, 12:21:58 PM
My father just got back from Quebec City. He said it was pretty monolingually French...fortunately he speaks French and that seemed to please the Quebecois so much they heaped praise upon him.
The problem is really centered around the downtown Montreal area. You walk into a store and get greeted by "How may I help you?" a huge majority of the time.
Jesus, what a nightmare.
Har har. It gets annoying when it happens almost all the time. Especially when you answer in french and they call somebody else to serve you. Wtf. How did you get your job if you don't speak the language.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 30, 2011, 12:35:36 PM
I and others have told you guys this hundreds of times, and it's quite symptomatic of the great divide between us.
Quebec is a UNILINGUAL francophone nation. We provide public schools in english for the small historical minority that lives here, because we're enlightened balls of light.
France is a UNILINGUAL francophone country. How come you don't cry that people there can't get free schooling in english?
Well it's problematic because Quebec is part of a BILINGUAL confederation, and as such both English and French have certain rights.
We're enlightened balls of light out here as well, and French schooling is provided to anyone who wants it (and has the linguistic chops to be able to handle it).
It seems unfair to me that if you're an anglophone immigrant to Quebec (either from the Rest of Canada, or somewhere else in the world) that you'd be denied schooling in your own native, official language.
And weren't you the guys saying that comparisons to Frence weren't helpful?
Quote from: Barrister on August 30, 2011, 12:44:29 PM
And weren't you the guys saying that comparisons to Frence weren't helpful?
Yeah that comparison makes no sense. Quebecois speak with a funny accent.
I mean...Quebec is part of a confederation with two official languages. If France entered into a union with Spain they would probably start providing Spanish education no?
Quote from: Zoupa on August 30, 2011, 12:43:07 PM
Har har. It gets annoying when it happens almost all the time. Especially when you answer in french and they call somebody else to serve you. Wtf. How did you get your job if you don't speak the language.
Okay, I didn't give the sarcastic response before, but ZOMG - the horror! The system works the way it should!
I think if you're a unilingual anglophone in Quebec you're putting yourself at a huge disadvantage, but you still have the basic right to work and earn a living to support yourself.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 30, 2011, 12:43:07 PM
Har har. It gets annoying when it happens almost all the time. Especially when you answer in french and they call somebody else to serve you. Wtf. How did you get your job if you don't speak the language.
Wow, you answer in French, and they get someone who speaks French to serve you, and this is annoying?
Quote from: Barrister on August 30, 2011, 12:47:12 PM
I think if you're a unilingual anglophone in Quebec you're putting yourself at a huge disadvantage, but you still have the basic right to work and earn a living to support yourself.
So in that sense would providing an Anglophone education in Quebec really be serving those people if you are creating a group who will be at a disadvantage? I presume they still teach English classes in Francophone schools so it is not like you wouldn't get training in that also. Just musing from a public policy perspective.
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2011, 12:48:49 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 30, 2011, 12:47:12 PM
I think if you're a unilingual anglophone in Quebec you're putting yourself at a huge disadvantage, but you still have the basic right to work and earn a living to support yourself.
So in that sense would providing an Anglophone education in Quebec really be serving those people if you are creating a group who will be at a disadvantage? I presume they still teach English classes in Francophone schools so it is not like you wouldn't get training in that also. Just musing from a public policy perspective.
Fair point, but when I say a francophone education I mean exactly that - everything is in French. It's not French classes for English speakers.
As I understand it. Feel free to correct me.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 30, 2011, 11:08:41 AMI have read the platform statements of the new party and they dont sound nearly so benign as all that. They want to prevent Francophones from attending Anglophone educational institutions. They want to prevent any immigrant from attending an Anglophone educational institution. They want to reduce immigration to the province.
We have not read the same thing. Except for the reducing immigration for a two year period, the rest is not in their platform.
Quote from: Barrister on August 30, 2011, 12:50:59 PM
Fair point, but when I say a francophone education I mean exactly that - everything is in French. It's not French classes for English speakers.
As I understand it. Feel free to correct me.
The only class I ever took in French, meant for French speakers, was a physics course and really math and science jargon is the same in any language. So I am probably not knowledgable enough to know.
Quote from: Barrister on August 30, 2011, 12:44:29 PM
It seems unfair to me that if you're an anglophone immigrant to Quebec (either from the Rest of Canada, or somewhere else in the world) that you'd be denied schooling in your own native, official language.
Once again, you forget the unilingual part. Sigh. I want to come to alberta and get free schooling in Swahili. That makes about as much sense.
You can say all you want about Canada being a bilingual confederation (what a joke btw). 99% of quebecers don't give a rat's ass what policies are enacted in the ROC. We never signed the damn charter anyways. You guys can decide to all start speaking mandarin for all we care.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 30, 2011, 01:00:04 PM
you want about Canada being a bilingual confederation (what a joke btw).
Man...no Pierre Trudeau points for you.
Quote from: Barrister on August 30, 2011, 12:47:12 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on August 30, 2011, 12:43:07 PM
Har har. It gets annoying when it happens almost all the time. Especially when you answer in french and they call somebody else to serve you. Wtf. How did you get your job if you don't speak the language.
Okay, I didn't give the sarcastic response before, but ZOMG - the horror! The system works the way it should!
The system doesn't work, no. Hence the only 51% of allophones functional in french. Hence the proposals for added funding, more classes.
Sometimes I wish we had a language police like all you wasps think we do. Then you could bitch and moan even more, wring your hands and do nothing, the Canadian way.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 30, 2011, 01:00:04 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 30, 2011, 12:44:29 PM
It seems unfair to me that if you're an anglophone immigrant to Quebec (either from the Rest of Canada, or somewhere else in the world) that you'd be denied schooling in your own native, official language.
Once again, you forget the unilingual part. Sigh. I want to come to alberta and get free schooling in Swahili. That makes about as much sense.
You can say all you want about Canada being a bilingual confederation (what a joke btw). 99% of quebecers don't give a rat's ass what policies are enacted in the ROC. We never signed the damn charter anyways. You guys can decide to all start speaking mandarin for all we care.
So you think there is no difference in Alberta between French and Swahili? Do you think that English and Swahili should be treated the same in Quebec? :hmm:
Man - I sure am feeling the love from quebec after arguing with CC and Malthus that Quebec does actually have the right to take steps to protect the French language. :(
Quote from: Zoupa on August 30, 2011, 01:00:04 PMYou can say all you want about Canada being a bilingual confederation (what a joke btw). 99% of quebecers don't give a rat's ass what policies are enacted in the ROC. We never signed the damn charter anyways. You guys can decide to all start speaking mandarin for all we care.
Nonetheless, when I walk into a government of Canada office in downtown Vancouver I'm greeted in French and English and all the services are available completely in French.
Are you saying that we should just forget about that, then?
No wonder Francophones outside of Quebec often have a dim view of the policies and influence of Quebec.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 30, 2011, 01:03:11 PMThe system doesn't work, no. Hence the only 51% of allophones functional in french. Hence the proposals for added funding, more classes.
Sometimes I wish we had a language police like all you wasps think we do. Then you could bitch and moan even more, wring your hands and do nothing, the Canadian way.
Why are you so cranky today, Zoupa? I mean, you're usually pretty spirited but this a bit out of the ordinary.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 30, 2011, 12:53:33 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 30, 2011, 11:08:41 AMI have read the platform statements of the new party and they dont sound nearly so benign as all that. They want to prevent Francophones from attending Anglophone educational institutions. They want to prevent any immigrant from attending an Anglophone educational institution. They want to reduce immigration to the province.
We have not read the same thing. Except for the reducing immigration for a two year period, the rest is not in their platform.
That is what the globe was reporting yesterday. I just read a translation of the actual platform and you are correct. It is not there.
Quote from: Jacob on August 30, 2011, 01:06:31 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on August 30, 2011, 01:03:11 PMThe system doesn't work, no. Hence the only 51% of allophones functional in french. Hence the proposals for added funding, more classes.
Sometimes I wish we had a language police like all you wasps think we do. Then you could bitch and moan even more, wring your hands and do nothing, the Canadian way.
Why are you so cranky today, Zoupa? I mean, you're usually pretty spirited but this a bit out of the ordinary.
I've explained and explained the school system here hundreds of times. It gets tiring. The sense of entitlement of anglocanadians is pretty staggering, not to mention the veiled comparisons to the gestapo, hints at racism etc. The comments are not so veiled elsewhere btw, like from toronto newspapers editorials or comments.
Quote from: Jacob on August 30, 2011, 12:30:36 PM
Hey Malthus (and CC, since I think you guys are in agreement) to what degree do you think it's reasonable for Quebec to enact policies to protect and promote the French language and Quebecois culture?
Is anything more than "government services must be provided in French" unreasonable? Or are there legitimate ways for the government to influence the language used in the public sphere, in your view? Or is it straight up up to the French language to sink or swim on its own, without any government action?
I think it is perfectly reasonable to legislate that anyone who wants to ought to be served in the French language, and that governmental and commercial publications (if the commercial entity is over a certain size) ought to be made available in French. In short, to prevent people who speak French from being prevented access to materials in their own language (though why commercial entities would *want* to alienate their customer-base by *not* doing so defies understanding).
It is not reasonable to use the coercive power of the government to support the culture of one subset of its citizens over another by enacting restictions that go beyond that, to enact measures designed symbolically to emphasize the primacy of one culture over another, to interfere in the free exercise of a parent's choice of language for the education of their children so as to enculturate them with the majority culture even though the parents do not wish this, simply because they are immigrants to the province, etc.
Stuff like exhorting people to always speak French is more of an annoyance, drawing the 'mind your own business" response. The problem with such exhortations is that they attempt to make somehow "wrong" something that has no moral weight whatsoever - namely, speaking one's choice of language. They also needlessly exacerbate inter-communial bad feelings. I wonder how our Quebec friends would react to an anglo politician in Ontario exhorting the population to speak only English.
I also deplore restricting immigration on the grounds that immigrants threaten the native majority culture, though nations naturally have the right to restrict immigration for whatever reasons the public wants. I think it is self-defeating. But this isn't the same as restricting the rights of people who are already citizens of the country, which is more of a concern.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 30, 2011, 01:09:17 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 30, 2011, 12:53:33 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 30, 2011, 11:08:41 AMI have read the platform statements of the new party and they dont sound nearly so benign as all that. They want to prevent Francophones from attending Anglophone educational institutions. They want to prevent any immigrant from attending an Anglophone educational institution. They want to reduce immigration to the province.
We have not read the same thing. Except for the reducing immigration for a two year period, the rest is not in their platform.
That is what the globe was reporting yesterday. I just read a translation of the actual platform and you are correct. It is not there.
You should call or e-mail the globe to correct them, never buy it again and tell all your friends about their shit reporting.
....right?
Quote from: Zoupa on August 30, 2011, 01:10:58 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 30, 2011, 01:06:31 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on August 30, 2011, 01:03:11 PMThe system doesn't work, no. Hence the only 51% of allophones functional in french. Hence the proposals for added funding, more classes.
Sometimes I wish we had a language police like all you wasps think we do. Then you could bitch and moan even more, wring your hands and do nothing, the Canadian way.
Why are you so cranky today, Zoupa? I mean, you're usually pretty spirited but this a bit out of the ordinary.
I've explained and explained the school system here hundreds of times. It gets tiring. The sense of entitlement of anglocanadians is pretty staggering, not to mention the veiled comparisons to the gestapo, hints at racism etc. The comments are not so veiled elsewhere btw, like from toronto newspapers editorials or comments.
The only Nazi references made in this thread are being made by Viper and you - both from Quebec. So you may wish to reconsider this line of attack.
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 01:11:37 PM
It is not reasonable to use the coercive power of the government to support the culture of one subset of its citizens over another by enacting restictions that go beyond that, to enact measures designed symbolically to emphasize the primacy of one culture over another, to interfere in the free exercise of a parent's choice of language for the education of their children so as to enculturate them with the majority culture even though the parents do not wish this, simply because they are immigrants to the province, etc.
Hi, I come from Botswana and want to have my kids schooled in Swahili, in Brampton Ontario. Please pay for it, this needs to be a public school. :)
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 01:14:10 PM
The only Nazi references made in this thread are being made by Viper and you - both from Quebec. So you may wish to reconsider this line of attack.
In this thread, maybe.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 30, 2011, 01:10:58 PMI've explained and explained the school system here hundreds of times. It gets tiring. The sense of entitlement of anglocanadians is pretty staggering, not to mention the veiled comparisons to the gestapo, hints at racism etc. The comments are not so veiled elsewhere btw, like from toronto newspapers editorials or comments.
But why is that causing you to shit on BB who was arguing on your side?
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 01:11:37 PMI wonder how our Quebec friends would react to an anglo politician in Ontario exhorting the population to speak only English.
I would think he is an idiot. Precisely because the situation of English and French in North America is pretty incomparable. This very simple truth seems paradoxically so hard to grasp.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 30, 2011, 01:10:58 PM
The sense of entitlement of anglocanadians is pretty staggering, not to mention the veiled comparisons to the gestapo, hints at racism etc.
Man have you got blinders on. The Francophones are the ones who want to institute State restrictions on language. The PQ has blamed past losses in neverendums to "immigrants" - which is exactly why limiting immigration is so appealing to some of you. The society described by Grallon does have striking similarities to State restriction of free expression which has been tried in past Fascist and Communist regimes.
If you are touchy about that then you might want to look a little closer at the extremes of your political sympathies.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 30, 2011, 01:14:49 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 01:11:37 PM
It is not reasonable to use the coercive power of the government to support the culture of one subset of its citizens over another by enacting restictions that go beyond that, to enact measures designed symbolically to emphasize the primacy of one culture over another, to interfere in the free exercise of a parent's choice of language for the education of their children so as to enculturate them with the majority culture even though the parents do not wish this, simply because they are immigrants to the province, etc.
Hi, I come from Botswana and want to have my kids schooled in Swahili, in Brampton Ontario. Please pay for it, this needs to be a public school. :)
I honestly would not care, if the parents could make a case that this would not disadvantage the child - which I would imagine would be difficult to do with Swahili.
English, or French, on the other hand, are languages that would easily pass that test.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 30, 2011, 01:16:20 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 01:14:10 PM
The only Nazi references made in this thread are being made by Viper and you - both from Quebec. So you may wish to reconsider this line of attack.
In this thread, maybe.
Again: it is evident that both "sides" are arguing from a context - with the Quebeckers of Languish asked to defend, or jumbled with caricatures or extreme cases taken from what their opponents deem their position to be, and the Canadians of Languish ascribed some of the political rhetoric that makes it into the chroniclers and columnists of the National Post or the Globe & Mail...
Quote from: Zoupa on August 30, 2011, 01:14:49 PMHi, I come from Botswana and want to have my kids schooled in Swahili, in Brampton Ontario. Please pay for it, this needs to be a public school. :)
Why would someone from Botswana want schooling in Swahili for their kids? Maybe if they were from Kenya or the Comoros, but Botswana?
That's like saying "Hi, I come from Sweden and want to have my kids schooled in Croatian, in Brampton Ontario."
Quote from: Zoupa on August 30, 2011, 01:12:14 PM
You should call or e-mail the globe to correct them, never buy it again and tell all your friends about their shit reporting.
....right?
You should do that with every newspaper, you should never ever read anything again for that matter because no newspublisher in history has ever published error free.
.....right?
Quote from: Zoupa on August 30, 2011, 01:14:49 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 01:11:37 PM
It is not reasonable to use the coercive power of the government to support the culture of one subset of its citizens over another by enacting restictions that go beyond that, to enact measures designed symbolically to emphasize the primacy of one culture over another, to interfere in the free exercise of a parent's choice of language for the education of their children so as to enculturate them with the majority culture even though the parents do not wish this, simply because they are immigrants to the province, etc.
Hi, I come from Botswana and want to have my kids schooled in Swahili, in Brampton Ontario. Please pay for it, this needs to be a public school. :)
Actually if there was as large a prescence of Swahili in Ontario as there is for English in Quebec I bet Ontario would cave and pay for it.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 30, 2011, 01:22:46 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on August 30, 2011, 01:16:20 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 01:14:10 PM
The only Nazi references made in this thread are being made by Viper and you - both from Quebec. So you may wish to reconsider this line of attack.
In this thread, maybe.
Again: it is evident that both "sides" are arguing from a context - with the Quebeckers of Languish asked to defend, or jumbled with caricatures or extreme cases taken from what their opponents deem their position to be, and the Canadians of Languish ascribed some of the political rhetoric that makes it into the chroniclers and columnists of the National Post or the Globe & Mail...
No, I am reacting directly to what Grallon has posted here. His view of how Quebec will look after a separation is quite scary.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 30, 2011, 12:07:34 PM
The story was from the Globe. Restricting the ability of French speakers to attend anglophone institutions and reducing immigration to prevent dilution of the French language are not dramatic steps in your view? They sound a lot like the racist rantings of a certain past PQ leader.
Quote from: Barrister on August 30, 2011, 12:09:28 PM
Indeed I read that Parizeau was literally lurking around some of these meetings.
The ideas to reduce immigration are just plain foolish. Immigration is one of the best ways to keep Quebec's culture and economy alive.
You are confusing two things. 1, there's a group of Ex-PQ MPs who rage quitted. They left furious that things weren't going their way. Parizeau is there, as his wife is part of this group. And these guys have often proposed French only education for Colleges and Universities.
They left because they feel the PQ is not talking enough about the seperatist ideology, not educating the citizens of Quebec to the merits of their ideas. It's an age old debate with the PQ. They were followed by various other individuals, some quitting, some writing letters, some complaining, etc, etc.
Legault is also an ex-PQ, but he says the timing is not right for independance and the idea should be put on ice. He's a former seperatist, and his association is a federalist.
Their first proposals dealt with healthcare, education and economy. Half-hearted measures, far from what we need. They are only half-dismantling the inefficient School Boards, refusing to hear about private health care because the battle is too tough and propose a raise to the teachers in exchange of a regular evaluation. They also proposed of paying back the debt, reducing the deficit, seeking efficiency in government services.
Of course, that branded them as right-wing extremists.
AFAIK, their site is not in english:
http://www.coalitionavenir.org/ (http://www.coalitionavenir.org/)
Anyway. The immigration proposal is to reduce the numbers from 55 000 to 45 000 for 2 years, though that is misleading as the government already announced a reduction to 50 000. So, really, it's only 5000 immigrants less for 2 years, the time needed to re-organize the government services to immigrant's integration to our society. The idea would be to not only seek French speakers, but seek the people we need. We need doctors, but we have problems getting them to work, for various reasons, too long to explain in this thread. He simply wants to attract less people and make them better, productive citizens. Not a bad goal in itself, but again, half-hearted measures.
regarding education, he talks about raising the bar for the French students, i.e. their capacity of writing french at the end of College. There's already a test for this, he just wants to make it tougher or ask better scores. Again, not much there.
Lots of talk about having students seeing more theaters, movies, musuems to stimulate their desire for local cultural products.
edit:
got the english text for education.
http://www.coalitionavenir.org/files/complete_version_education_eng_A.pdf (http://www.coalitionavenir.org/files/complete_version_education_eng_A.pdf)
I fail to see anything about French only schools for everyone.
Healthcare:
http://www.coalitionavenir.org/files/Position%20paper%20on%20healthcare%20_full_text2.pdf
Economy:
http://www.coalitionavenir.org/files/Position%20Paper%20Economy%20Summary.pdf
Nothing drastic here.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 30, 2011, 01:18:23 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 01:11:37 PMI wonder how our Quebec friends would react to an anglo politician in Ontario exhorting the population to speak only English.
I would think he is an idiot. Precisely because the situation of English and French in North America is pretty incomparable. This very simple truth seems paradoxically so hard to grasp.
Like many pleas for double standards, this one doesn't bear any scrutiny. The offensiveness of calling for people in Ontario to only speak English is not caused by the fact that such a call would be effective, or because such a call is necessary - neither is true - but because it is denigrating to those who choose to speak French. That is why people in Quebec would (rightfully) howl in outrage if anyone did it.
Of course, the same is true when the shoe's on the other foot, but people in the RoC are enured to such stuff by now and so hardly react at all.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 30, 2011, 01:23:33 PM
You should do that with every newspaper, you should never ever read anything again for that matter because no newspublisher in history has ever published error free.
.....right?
I don't know man. They described a scary political platform for a party that that party does not actually have. That sounds like libel to me, not a simple mistake.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 30, 2011, 01:21:21 PMThe PQ has blamed past losses in neverendums to "immigrants" - which is exactly why limiting immigration is so appealing to some of you. The society described by Grallon does have striking similarities to State restriction of free expression which has been tried in past Fascist and Communist regimes.
...and we were doing so well.
Every society limits immigration, and the overwhelming majority of societies out there - including the US - limits it more than Canada and Quebec, on a per capita basis. One can certainly take pride in that fact re: Canada, but before ascribing any such talk by a non-party to an undercurrent of fascism (Grallon's own idiosyncracises notwithstanding), maybe some rhetorical precautions would be in order.
Quote from: Barrister on August 30, 2011, 01:04:57 PM
Man - I sure am feeling the love from quebec after arguing with CC and Malthus that Quebec does actually have the right to take steps to protect the French language. :(
There is nothing so hated as someone who isn't as radical as the radicals demand.
Quote from: Jacob on August 30, 2011, 01:23:21 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on August 30, 2011, 01:14:49 PMHi, I come from Botswana and want to have my kids schooled in Swahili, in Brampton Ontario. Please pay for it, this needs to be a public school. :)
Why would someone from Botswana want schooling in Swahili for their kids? Maybe if they were from Kenya or the Comoros, but Botswana?
That's like saying "Hi, I come from Sweden and want to have my kids schooled in Croatian, in Brampton Ontario."
The great Dane. Stop being a smart ass <_<
:hug:
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 30, 2011, 01:21:21 PM
The PQ has blamed past losses in neverendums to "immigrants" - which is exactly why limiting immigration is so appealing to some of you.
Only Parizeau did that, and he was immediatly contradicted by almost everyone who followed him. Also, he resigned shortly after that.
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2011, 01:24:09 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on August 30, 2011, 01:14:49 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 01:11:37 PM
It is not reasonable to use the coercive power of the government to support the culture of one subset of its citizens over another by enacting restictions that go beyond that, to enact measures designed symbolically to emphasize the primacy of one culture over another, to interfere in the free exercise of a parent's choice of language for the education of their children so as to enculturate them with the majority culture even though the parents do not wish this, simply because they are immigrants to the province, etc.
Hi, I come from Botswana and want to have my kids schooled in Swahili, in Brampton Ontario. Please pay for it, this needs to be a public school. :)
Actually if there was as large a prescence of Swahili in Ontario as there is for English in Quebec I bet Ontario would cave and pay for it.
So do we. :)
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 01:21:37 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on August 30, 2011, 01:14:49 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 01:11:37 PM
It is not reasonable to use the coercive power of the government to support the culture of one subset of its citizens over another by enacting restictions that go beyond that, to enact measures designed symbolically to emphasize the primacy of one culture over another, to interfere in the free exercise of a parent's choice of language for the education of their children so as to enculturate them with the majority culture even though the parents do not wish this, simply because they are immigrants to the province, etc.
Hi, I come from Botswana and want to have my kids schooled in Swahili, in Brampton Ontario. Please pay for it, this needs to be a public school. :)
I honestly would not care, if the parents could make a case that this would not disadvantage the child - which I would imagine would be difficult to do with Swahili.
English, or French, on the other hand, are languages that would easily pass that test.
I don't understand, you just wrote that it is not reasonable to use the coercive power of the government to interfere in the free exercise of a parent's choice of language for the education of their children so as to enculturate them with the majority culture even though the parents do not wish this, simply because they are immigrants to the province.
Quote from: Barrister on August 30, 2011, 01:04:57 PM
Man - I sure am feeling the love from quebec after arguing with CC and Malthus that Quebec does actually have the right to take steps to protect the French language. :(
:Canuck: :cheers: :console:
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 30, 2011, 01:21:21 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on August 30, 2011, 01:10:58 PM
The sense of entitlement of anglocanadians is pretty staggering, not to mention the veiled comparisons to the gestapo, hints at racism etc.
Man have you got blinders on. The Francophones are the ones who want to institute State restrictions on language. The PQ has blamed past losses in neverendums to "immigrants" - which is exactly why limiting immigration is so appealing to some of you. The society described by Grallon does have striking similarities to State restriction of free expression which has been tried in past Fascist and Communist regimes.
If you are touchy about that then you might want to look a little closer at the extremes of your political sympathies.
:lol: Here we go. You're too much dude. Keep that fantasy alive please, and spread it around. That will only mean less public support in the RoC next time you guys try to buy referendum votes.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 30, 2011, 01:34:42 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 01:21:37 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on August 30, 2011, 01:14:49 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 01:11:37 PM
It is not reasonable to use the coercive power of the government to support the culture of one subset of its citizens over another by enacting restictions that go beyond that, to enact measures designed symbolically to emphasize the primacy of one culture over another, to interfere in the free exercise of a parent's choice of language for the education of their children so as to enculturate them with the majority culture even though the parents do not wish this, simply because they are immigrants to the province, etc.
Hi, I come from Botswana and want to have my kids schooled in Swahili, in Brampton Ontario. Please pay for it, this needs to be a public school. :)
I honestly would not care, if the parents could make a case that this would not disadvantage the child - which I would imagine would be difficult to do with Swahili.
English, or French, on the other hand, are languages that would easily pass that test.
I don't understand, you just wrote that it is not reasonable to use the coercive power of the government to interfere in the free exercise of a parent's choice of language for the education of their children so as to enculturate them with the majority culture even though the parents do not wish this, simply because they are immigrants to the province.
What's not to understand? In the case of an obscure language, enculturation isn't the reason for restriction. More like "the kid will be harmed if s/he is educated only in Swahili. Oh, and we don't have any Swahili teachers anyway".
Is that really a problem with English?
I think the people who are getting overlooked here are Montreal's Anglophone community, who have a proud and noble heritage and don't deserve the cultural genocide being perpetrated by a deeply racist francophone majority.
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 01:28:00 PM
Like many pleas for double standards, this one doesn't bear any scrutiny. The offensiveness of calling for people in Ontario to only speak English is not caused by the fact that such a call would be effective, or because such a call is necessary - neither is true - but because it is denigrating to those who choose to speak French. That is why people in Quebec would (rightfully) howl in outrage if anyone did it.
It simply returns to the fundamental disagrement we have: you argue from a position detached from context, and I argue that contexts allows us to better understand the position.
Yet, your position is by necessity bound within a context. People calling for English to be spoken in the US will be received much differently if they are uttered by people with a history of fighting illegal immigration, or if they are reminded by people fearing school problems. Such a call would also take into account the social dynamics of the US, the assimilation which happens, etc.
And it is the same in Canada. To a certain extent, you are right: there is an element of double standards at play - which is dependent upon the unique Canadian context. Since the 1970s, Quebec has adopted a unique official unilingualism with a strong, lived, officious bilingualism which is much stronger than in many places in Canada. Canada, in reverse, has an official bilingualism with what is, in effect, a strong, lived, officious unilingualism. Because of that very dichotomy, both sides attack what they perceive to be the weakest point of the adversary: the official policies of Quebec, and the actual assimilating social dynamics of the Rest of Canada. As long as we remain on one "side", there is little possible dialogue.
Quote from: Neil on August 30, 2011, 01:41:06 PM
I think the people who are getting overlooked here are Montreal's Anglophone community, who have a proud and noble heritage and don't deserve the cultural genocide being perpetrated by a deeply racist francophone majority.
:lol:
But seriously Zoup said the historical English groups get their schools in English.
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2011, 01:42:56 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 30, 2011, 01:41:06 PM
I think the people who are getting overlooked here are Montreal's Anglophone community, who have a proud and noble heritage and don't deserve the cultural genocide being perpetrated by a deeply racist francophone majority.
:lol:
But seriously Zoup said the historical English groups get their schools in English.
They're not immune to the language Gestapo strolling around checking signs.
Really, we should have just carved Montreal out of Quebec and included it in Ontario in 1980, for the sake of human rights.
If mouth sugar or Ogle were here I'd ask them about the details regarding the Swedish-speaking parts of Finland.
So am I correct that the basic claim Oex of the Francophones in respect to the rest of Canada is that the official bilingualism is practically non-existent?
While the official unilingualism of Quebec is practically bilingualism?
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2011, 01:42:56 PM
But seriously Zoup said the historical English groups get their schools in English.
Yes, they do. As well as three universities, eight hospitals, a newspaper, tons of TV chanels, including local ones, and half a dozen radio chanels.
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2011, 01:42:56 PM
:lol:
But seriously Zoup said the historical English groups get their schools in English.
This is true. see the legislation.
Quote73. The following children, at the request of one of their parents, may receive instruction in English:
(1) a child whose father or mother is a Canadian citizen and received elementary instruction in English in Canada, provided that that instruction constitutes the major part of the elementary instruction he or she received in Canada;
(2) a child whose father or mother is a Canadian citizen and who has received or is receiving elementary or secondary instruction in English in Canada, and the brothers and sisters of that child, provided that that instruction constitutes the major part of the elementary or secondary instruction received by the child in Canada;
...
86.1. In addition to the cases provided for in section 73, the Government, by order, may, at the request of one of the parents, authorize generally the following children to receive their instruction in English:
(a) a child whose father or mother received the greater part of his or her elementary instruction in English elsewhere in Canada and, before establishing domicile in Québec, was domiciled in a province or territory that it indicates in the order and where it considers that the services of instruction in French offered to French-speaking persons are comparable to those offered in English to English-speaking persons in Québec;
(b) a child whose father or mother establishes domicile in Québec and who, during his last school year or from the beginning of the current school year, has received primary or secondary instruction in English in the province or territory indicated in the order;
(c) the younger brothers and sisters of children described in subparagraphs a and b.
Applicability.
Sections 76 to 79 apply to the persons contemplated in this section.
From Chapter VIII, here.
http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/dynamicSearch/telecharge.php?type=2&file=/C_11/C11_A.html
Effectively, these provisions make immigrants, and those who are Canadians and cannot prove "anglo-ness" in educational matters, get (public) education in French.
Quote from: Berkut on August 30, 2011, 01:47:00 PM
So am I correct that the basic claim Oex of the Francophones in respect to the rest of Canada is that the official bilingualism is practically non-existent?
I thought he was saying there is official bilingualism but in fact there is monolingualism. Whereas in Quebec there is official monolingualism but in fact there is bilingualism.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 30, 2011, 01:14:49 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 01:11:37 PM
It is not reasonable to use the coercive power of the government to support the culture of one subset of its citizens over another by enacting restictions that go beyond that, to enact measures designed symbolically to emphasize the primacy of one culture over another, to interfere in the free exercise of a parent's choice of language for the education of their children so as to enculturate them with the majority culture even though the parents do not wish this, simply because they are immigrants to the province, etc.
Hi, I come from Botswana and want to have my kids schooled in Swahili, in Brampton Ontario. Please pay for it, this needs to be a public school. :)
I was just reminded that I saw whole bunch of ads on my commuter train this morning encouraging people to enroll their kids in the Ukrainian Bilingual program of the Edmonson school board. :)
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 01:48:42 PM
Effectively, these provisions make immigrants, and those who are Canadians and cannot prove "anglo-ness" in educational matters, get (public) education in French.
But is that not to their benefit? I mean if they are going to live in Quebec it just makes sense to learn French. And besides I am pretty sure the Francophone schools still teach English correct? I mean Grey Fox and company probably did not learn it entirely from Paradox games.
I would think only a minority of immigrants would have a huge problem with that.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 30, 2011, 01:28:53 PM
Every society limits immigration, and the overwhelming majority of societies out there - including the US - limits it more than Canada and Quebec, on a per capita basis. One can certainly take pride in that fact re: Canada, but before ascribing any such talk by a non-party to an undercurrent of fascism (Grallon's own idiosyncracises notwithstanding), maybe some rhetorical precautions would be in order.
You have taken me very much out of context. The immigration part was in reference to a complaint that we were seeing racism where there is none. The facism comes from Grallon's posts.
Quote from: Berkut on August 30, 2011, 01:47:00 PM
So am I correct that the basic claim Oex of the Francophones in respect to the rest of Canada is that the official bilingualism is practically non-existent?
While the official unilingualism of Quebec is practically bilingualism?
No, you are not correct. It is the officious - the lived, the
actual bilingualism - which is non-existent. The official bilingualism (and by that, I mean the Federal government bilingualism) exists - despite its very real shortcomings.
And, indeed, the official unilingualism of Quebec is practically bilingualism. You *will* get services in English from the government. You will get services in English from the population. From businesses. You get access to media, books, education, health care, entertainment in English. And, unless I am mistaken, Viper, Grey Fox, Rex Francorum, Grallon and I are the product of a French speaking education system - and yet we are arguing all this in English.
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 01:48:42 PM
Effectively, these provisions make immigrants, and those who are Canadians and cannot prove "anglo-ness" in educational matters, get (public) education in French.
they're free to pay for their education. I fail to see why we should pay for our assimilation. They even have access to English public schools after a few years in a private one.
Oh, the horror... Learning French in Quebec is a vewwy bad thing...
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 30, 2011, 01:41:19 PM
It simply returns to the fundamental disagrement we have: you argue from a position detached from context, and I argue that contexts allows us to better understand the position.
:hug:
This is a complaint I frequently have in Languish coversations. So many people want to argue in the abstract, want to argue from political first principles, and generally ignore the historical context of why things are the way they are.
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2011, 01:51:02 PM
I would think only a minority of immigrants would have a huge problem with that.
Immigrants don't have a problem with that. Many English Quebecers of the old guard do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_Party_%28Quebec%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_Quebec
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2011, 01:51:02 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 01:48:42 PM
Effectively, these provisions make immigrants, and those who are Canadians and cannot prove "anglo-ness" in educational matters, get (public) education in French.
But is that not to their benefit? I mean if they are going to live in Quebec it just makes sense to learn French. And besides I am pretty sure the Francophone schools still teach English correct? I mean Grey Fox and company probably did not learn it entirely from Paradox games.
I would think only a minority of immigrants would have a huge problem with that.
Fact is that even with these policies many immigrants prefer their kids to learn English - which is what Zoupa was decrying.
Why does the government know better on this issue than them?
Fact is, not even those pushing these policies claim it's for the benefit of the kids - the benefit is to the Francophone majority, not to them.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 30, 2011, 01:51:46 PM
And, indeed, the official unilingualism of Quebec is practically bilingualism. You *will* get services in English from the government.
I can tell you right now that this is not true.
Example: my field of drug regulation.
RAMQ's English site:
http://www.ramq.gouv.qc.ca/index_en.shtml
RAMQ's French site:
http://www.ramq.gouv.qc.ca/index.shtml
Looks pretty similar, right? Now, look for some information.
http://www.ramq.gouv.qc.ca/en/professionnels/index.shtml
Oh oh.
QuoteThis section is not available in English.
To consult the French version:
Services aux professionnels de la santé
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 01:58:18 PM
Fact is that even with these policies many immigrants prefer their kids to learn English - which is what Zoupa was decrying.
Why does the government know better on this issue than them?
And I was suggesting they will learn English anyway. I do not get the second sentence. The government is the one providing the service and spending the money so um what? How dare the government have a say in the government?
I was speaking that taken on its face I do not see the problem. Presuming my assumption, that English is taught in the Francophone schools, is correct.
Quote from: Barrister on August 30, 2011, 01:53:45 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 30, 2011, 01:41:19 PM
It simply returns to the fundamental disagrement we have: you argue from a position detached from context, and I argue that contexts allows us to better understand the position.
:hug:
This is a complaint I frequently have in Languish coversations. So many people want to argue in the abstract, want to argue from political first principles, and generally ignore the historical context of why things are the way they are.
Huh? I'm not "ignoring the historical context of why things are the way they are". The fact that they are the way they are isn't a moral reason for them to be that way.
To go back to the OP - poling done has shown that a majority of Canadians support renaming the air force and navy. It's almost 2:1 in favour from what I can tell.
Even in Quebec the move gathered 41% support.
:Canuck:
Quote from: Barrister on August 30, 2011, 02:06:42 PM
Even in Quebec the move gathered 41% support.
Vive La Reine? :(
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2011, 02:02:01 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 01:58:18 PM
Fact is that even with these policies many immigrants prefer their kids to learn English - which is what Zoupa was decrying.
Why does the government know better on this issue than them?
And I was suggesting they will learn English anyway. I do not get the second sentence. The government is the one providing the service and spending the money so um what? How dare the government have a say in the government?
Huh? The government isn't providing services for its *own* good out of the goodness of its heart, but for that of its citizens, who after all pay the taxes, right?
It is for the citizens to decide - but in this case, they are deciding, not in the interests of the children, but in the interests of a majority block *against* the (perceived) interests of the children and their parents.
This is a classic tyranny of the majority situation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 02:08:00 PM
Huh? The government isn't providing services for its *own* good out of the goodness of its heart, but for that of its citizens, who after all pay the taxes, right?
It is for the citizens to decide - but in this case, they are deciding, not in the interests of the children, but in the interests of a majority block *against* the (perceived) interests of the children and their parents.
This is a classic tyranny of the majority situation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
I do not see anything coercive about NOT spending money to provide a service. Unless tyrants rule the world over. As to why the government is providing mostly Francophone schools, well I presume they are doing it because that is what the voters want. But what I was saying is that the move seems more aimed at making sure people can speak French less that English is destroyed. Educated people being able to speak French is just a logical public interest in a French speaking place. Which strikes me as not a horrible thing.
They will also be taught English.
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 02:01:38 PM
QuoteThis section is not available in English.
To consult the French version:
Services aux professionnels de la santé
so, there's no one in your office to do the translations billed at 450$/hr to your clients? ;)
Seriously, I'd suggest e-mailing them for the info you require.
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 02:01:38 PM
Services aux professionnels de la santé
Oh noes, a section of a website is not available in English.
Just like many sections of websites are not available in French - say, in the Ontario E-Laws site.
Have you tried to write them?
Quote from: Barrister on August 30, 2011, 02:06:42 PM
To go back to the OP - poling done has shown that a majority of Canadians support renaming the air force and navy. It's almost 2:1 in favour from what I can tell.
Even in Quebec the move gathered 41% support.
:Canuck:
strange. Polls give the same results for people in favour of independance (38%). I think all the seperatists are pleased with the name change :P
Quote from: viper37 on August 30, 2011, 02:15:05 PM
strange. Polls give the same results for people in favour of independance (38%). I think all the seperatists are pleased with the name change :P
Or maybe your "separatists" are trying to pull a Boulangist coup and are actually trying to set up a Quebec Monarchy :angry:
Louis XX will be flown over and will reign from his throne of republican skulls inside the Château de la Bastille Nouvelle overlooking the St Lawrence.
Quote from: viper37 on August 30, 2011, 02:15:05 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 30, 2011, 02:06:42 PM
To go back to the OP - poling done has shown that a majority of Canadians support renaming the air force and navy. It's almost 2:1 in favour from what I can tell.
Even in Quebec the move gathered 41% support.
:Canuck:
strange. Polls give the same results for people in favour of independance (38%). I think all the seperatists are pleased with the name change :P
I dunno about that:
QuoteRegionally, there was marked disagreement only in Quebec, where 41 per cent approved of the idea and 46 per cent were against it.
Doug Anderson, senior vice-president of Harris/Decima, said the bare numbers in Quebec may conceal a deeper reality, however.
"Within the partisan scope it's really only Bloc Quebecois supporters who are opposed to it," he said.
"This means that actually among all the rest of the voters in Quebec who are either considering a federalist party or not considering the Bloc Québécois, there must necessarily, mathematically, be overwhelming agreement with the move."
So people who are already separatists are the only ones significantly opposed to the idea.
I'm not terribly surprised.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/majority-backs-restoration-of-royal-designations-for-navy-air-force/article2146872/
I thought the BQ was wimpy on the cause of separation and were fine with sovereignty.
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2011, 02:18:27 PM
Louis XX will be flown over and will reign from his throne of republican skulls inside the Château de la Bastille Nouvelle overlooking the St Lawrence.
It's actually called Château Frontenac, no need to change the name ;)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbilan.usherbrooke.ca%2Fvoutes%2Fvoute4%2Fchateaufrontenac_1983.jpg&hash=1f4b59466ffb4042771879d7c12cab6ff4d0f6b0)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.quebecexploration.qc.ca%2Fimages%2Fchateau_frontenac.jpg&hash=2e18e435d156c497e773c0d8bf5fe8d614615264)
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2011, 02:21:07 PM
I thought the BQ was wimpy on the cause of separation and were fine with sovereignty.
:huh: No....
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2011, 02:21:07 PM
I thought the BQ was wimpy on the cause of separation and were fine with sovereignty.
The Bloc is simply wimpy at the moment, with only 4 mps left.
And they stand for... themselves, really. Under Gilles Duceppe as leader, the party gradually moved from a nationalist/independantist party to a purely socialist party.
Quote from: viper37 on August 30, 2011, 02:13:06 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 02:01:38 PM
QuoteThis section is not available in English.
To consult the French version:
Services aux professionnels de la santé
so, there's no one in your office to do the translations billed at 450$/hr to your clients? ;)
Seriously, I'd suggest e-mailing them for the info you require.
What I do, is puzzle it through, or consult the guy next door who speaks French.
But that's not the point - point is, many, many Quebec gov't websites are like this: they offer an "English section" with a front page in English, but all of the actual information is in French.
Meh. Quebec court decisions are all in French only too. Heck I even remember when *the* case on point turned out to be a French-only case from Quebec, where the SCC merely adopted the reasoning from Quebec.
It's just the price of being a bilingual country. Not everything is going to be perfectly bilingual.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 30, 2011, 02:14:48 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 02:01:38 PM
Services aux professionnels de la santé
Oh noes, a section of a website is not available in English.
Oh noes, an factual assertion made by you about Quebec isn't actually correct.
Quote
Just like many sections of websites are not available in French - say, in the Ontario E-Laws site.
Have you tried to write them?
I'm trying to test that theory, but as far as I can see, almost everything is available in French - even the Ontario Gazette.
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/navigation?file=home&lang=fr
http://www.ontariogazette.gov.on.ca/
Is the Quebec Gazette available in English? Why, no.
http://www3.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/gazetteofficielle.en.html
Quote from: Barrister on August 30, 2011, 03:13:31 PM
Meh. Quebec court decisions are all in French only too. Heck I even remember when *the* case on point turned out to be a French-only case from Quebec, where the SCC merely adopted the reasoning from Quebec.
It's just the price of being a bilingual country. Not everything is going to be perfectly bilingual.
I'm exploring the assertion that:
QuoteAnd, indeed, the official unilingualism of Quebec is practically bilingualism. You *will* get services in English from the government.
Which turns out to be, well, untrue. You get more and better services in French in Ontario from the government that you get services in English in Quebec from the government.
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2011, 02:11:17 PM
I do not see anything coercive about NOT spending money to provide a service. Unless tyrants rule the world over. As to why the government is providing mostly Francophone schools, well I presume they are doing it because that is what the voters want. But what I was saying is that the move seems more aimed at making sure people can speak French less that English is destroyed. Educated people being able to speak French is just a logical public interest in a French speaking place. Which strikes me as not a horrible thing.
They will also be taught English.
It's clear you don't understand what the "tyranny of the majority" means. Of course it is what "the voters want": just as three wolves and two sheep having a free democratic vote as to what's for dinner, such a voter preference just *may* be unfair to the minority! :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 03:25:54 PM
It's clear you don't understand what the "tyranny of the majority" means.
I understand what it means. I was not aware that providing free education was a form of tyranny if you do not do it exactly like each person would like. If they had a law FORCING everybody to only be educated in French well yeah that would be tyranny.
I guess I thought tyranny was about coercion not providing services in a not entirely satisfactory way.
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2011, 03:29:54 PM
I understand what it means. I was not aware that providing free education was a form of tyranny if you do not do it exactly like each person would like.
First, let's eliminate this whole "if the government provides it, it's free" meme. Nothing is free. It is paid for by taxation by citizens. What this means is that a very sizable minority of citizens is paying taxes for education, but the content of that education is being set by the majority.
Please note that this is *not* true here in Ontario, where there exists a French school system and where, right on the tax form, you can choose to pay for one or the other, your choice.
QuoteIf they had a law FORCING everybody to only be educated in French well yeah that would be tyranny.
Heh.
Quote72. Instruction in the kindergarten classes and in the elementary and secondary schools shall be in French, except where this chapter allows otherwise.
Scope.
This rule obtains in school bodies within the meaning of the Schedule and in private educational institutions accredited for purposes of subsidies under the Act respecting private education (chapter E-9.1) with respect to the educational services covered by an accreditation.
The only way to avoid being caught is to have a school that isn't even accredited for potential subsidies. Private schools are caught if accredited.
Change your mind any?
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2011, 03:29:54 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 03:25:54 PM
It's clear you don't understand what the "tyranny of the majority" means.
I understand what it means. I was not aware that providing free education was a form of tyranny if you do not do it exactly like each person would like. If they had a law FORCING everybody to only be educated in French well yeah that would be tyranny.
I guess I thought tyranny was about coercion not providing services in a not entirely satisfactory way.
I generally take a rather dim view of many of the polices supported by French-speaking Canadian, but Quebec failing to provide schooling for immigrants in a language other than French doesn't seem like something to get outraged about.
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 03:39:16 PM
First, let's eliminate this whole "if the government provides it, it's free" meme. Nothing is free. It is paid for by taxation by citizens. What this means is that a very sizable minority of citizens is paying taxes for education, but the content of that education is being set by the majority.
So unless Texas provides Spanish schools at taxpayer expense to our immigrants that is tyranny? Granted it does not translate just perfectly because Texas Education is so decentralized. But I certainly am not interested in public money going to educate people in such a way they will not be fully functional Texan adults. That requires a knowledge of English. I guess I can see myself thinking the same thing if I was from Quebec.
The accredation thing only looks like it applies to receiving public funds, not being accredited to teach period.
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 03:17:22 PM
Oh noes, an factual assertion made by you about Quebec isn't actually correct.
Of course - you and I can play that game, time and again, finding websites with missing translations. But I fail to see how it invalidates what I have said. The absence of an English version on a website - or, indeed, the official unilingualism of Quebec - does not mean that you will not receive English services.
(As for my own example, from E-Laws, :"Outre les versions anglaises des règlements bilingues, l'interface anglaise offre également ce qui suit: Les codifications des règlements unilingues anglais de la plupart des lois d'intérêt public; Les règlements unilingues anglais tels que déposés depuis le 1er janvier 2000, etc." http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/WebText/french/elaws_webtext_FAQs_f.htm#24).
Quote from: dps on August 30, 2011, 03:45:49 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2011, 03:29:54 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 03:25:54 PM
It's clear you don't understand what the "tyranny of the majority" means.
I understand what it means. I was not aware that providing free education was a form of tyranny if you do not do it exactly like each person would like. If they had a law FORCING everybody to only be educated in French well yeah that would be tyranny.
I guess I thought tyranny was about coercion not providing services in a not entirely satisfactory way.
I generally take a rather dim view of many of the polices supported by French-speaking Canadian, but Quebec failing to provide schooling for immigrants in a language other than French doesn't seem like something to get outraged about.
It's something *they*, the immigrants, dislike - because they believe it harms their prospects.
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 03:55:31 PM
It's something *they*, the immigrants, dislike - because they believe it harms their prospects.
So I was wrong and the Francophone schools do not teach English?
I keep hoping one of you Quebeckers will pop in and say something about how awesome/crappy English instruction in Quebec is or one of you other Canadians.
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2011, 03:52:11 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 03:39:16 PM
First, let's eliminate this whole "if the government provides it, it's free" meme. Nothing is free. It is paid for by taxation by citizens. What this means is that a very sizable minority of citizens is paying taxes for education, but the content of that education is being set by the majority.
So unless Texas provides Spanish schools at taxpayer expense to our immigrants that is tyranny? Granted it does not translate just perfectly because Texas Education is so decentralized. But I certainly am not interested in public money going to educate people in such a way they will not be fully functional Texan adults. That requires a knowledge of English. I guess I can see myself thinking the same thing if I was from Quebec.
The accredation thing only looks like it applies to receiving public funds, not being accredited to teach period.
Would being educated in English make these immigrants non-functional? What enrages some Quebec politicians is that
this is in fact not true, and they
wish it was!
In point of fact, the majority of immigrant citizens prefer having their kids educated in English, and they are acting rationally to do so exactly *because* it will enable their kids to function *perfectly fine*.
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2011, 03:56:15 PM
I keep hoping one of you Quebeckers will pop in and say something about how awesome/crappy English instruction in Quebec is or one of you other Canadians.
You can find all about here from the Quebec Government itself.
QuoteIn 1977, Québec's National Assembly adopted the Charter of the French Language (Bill 101), which states that all children must be educated in French until the end of their secondary studies, whether in a public school or a subsidized private school.
For those students who are not fluent in French, the Ministère de l'Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport du Québec (MELS) offers a variety of language learning support measures in cooperation with the school boards, which dispense preschool, elementary school and secondary school education.
The Charter does not apply to Québec's colleges and universities or non-subsidized private institutions.
The Charter does provide for certain special cases where children are allowed to pursue their studies in English at public or subsidized private schools.
read on for the details
http://www.mels.gouv.qc.ca/daasa/rens/banque/fiches/f95a.htm
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 30, 2011, 04:02:01 PM
http://www.mels.gouv.qc.ca/daasa/rens/banque/fiches/f95a.htm
That doesn't seem to say anything about how well people come out of the Francophone school system knowing English.
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 03:59:58 PM
Would being educated in English make these immigrants non-functional? What enrages some Quebec politicians is that this is in fact not true, and they wish it was!
In point of fact, the majority of immigrant citizens prefer having their kids educated in English, and they are acting rationally to do so exactly *because* it will enable their kids to function *perfectly fine*.
That makes no sense. How would ignorance of French be perfectly fine in a place where it is required for virtually every profession?
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2011, 04:11:05 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 03:59:58 PM
Would being educated in English make these immigrants non-functional? What enrages some Quebec politicians is that this is in fact not true, and they wish it was!
In point of fact, the majority of immigrant citizens prefer having their kids educated in English, and they are acting rationally to do so exactly *because* it will enable their kids to function *perfectly fine*.
That makes no sense. How would ignorance of French be perfectly fine in a place where it is required for virtually every profession?
Because English opens up opportunities in the rest of the country (plus you can still get a number of jobs in Quebec knowing English only).
Quote from: Barrister on August 30, 2011, 04:14:44 PM
Because English opens up opportunities in the rest of the country (plus you can still get a number of jobs in Quebec knowing English only).
Again do you learn English in the Francophone system? Does it work enough to function in English? I have been asking that question for awhile now. Oex seemed to imply that, in fact, it does.
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2011, 04:11:05 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 03:59:58 PM
Would being educated in English make these immigrants non-functional? What enrages some Quebec politicians is that this is in fact not true, and they wish it was!
In point of fact, the majority of immigrant citizens prefer having their kids educated in English, and they are acting rationally to do so exactly *because* it will enable their kids to function *perfectly fine*.
That makes no sense. How would ignorance of French be perfectly fine in a place where it is required for virtually every profession?
Nonetheless, immigrants are voting with their choices.
Perhaps because they can get jobs anywhere else in Canada easily and still get some in Quebec knowing English only, the trade-off seems okay.
Perhaps being educated in English in a province where French is a majority language doesn't actually end up with them being ignorant of French? After all, you appear to be pushing the line that being educated in French doesn't mean ignorance of English, no?
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 04:17:06 PM
Perhaps being educated in English in a province where French is a majority language doesn't actually end up with them being ignorant of French? After all, you appear to be pushing the line that being educated in French doesn't mean ignorance of English, no?
I am asking the line yes. If it is the case that you learn both then why is it an issue at all? But this is North America. It is alot easier to learn English you are surrounded by it.
In short: I bet that a larger percentage come out of Francophone instruction bilingual than come out of Anglophone bilingual.
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2011, 04:18:56 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 04:17:06 PM
Perhaps being educated in English in a province where French is a majority language doesn't actually end up with them being ignorant of French? After all, you appear to be pushing the line that being educated in French doesn't mean ignorance of English, no?
I am asking the line yes. If it is the case that you learn both then why is it an issue at all? But this is North America. It is alot easier to learn English you are surrounded by it.
It also means that, if given a choice, it is the language you'd want to know *best* exactly because it is the most useful and functional to *you*.
That's, in a nutshell, what has certain persons in Quebec up in arms - they fear that, given a choice, immigrants will (in their own rational self-interest, mind) prefer learning English to French, where their first language is neither.
That's why the "oh, its' for the kids own good, like stopping parents teaching their kids something obscure like Swahili" line is such an obvious, glaring red herring. The Quebec policy has nothing to do with the self-interest of the kids, and everything to do with the majority wishing to preserve its majority status.
The issue is this: is it right for a majority to impose measures upon the children of immigrants contrary to the expressed interest of the parents *and* in fact contrary to their actual self interest - where the "pressing societal purpose" is to ensure that a cultural majority remains a cultural majority?
To my mind, the answer is clearly "no". Individual interests should trump.
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 04:31:19 PM
The issue is this: is it right for a majority to impose measures upon the children of immigrants contrary to the expressed interest of the parents *and* in fact contrary to their actual self interest - where the "pressing societal purpose" is to ensure that a cultural majority remains a cultural majority?
Ok what you are claiming basically calls the entire US educational system unjust. In fact having an education system at all is unjust. What exactly would a just educational system look like? I have never heard that allowing the majority to shape public education was something that should not happen. Who should shape it? Hans' unelected God-Emperors?
And further again...how is it contrary to somebody's best interests?
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2011, 04:43:58 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 04:31:19 PM
The issue is this: is it right for a majority to impose measures upon the children of immigrants contrary to the expressed interest of the parents *and* in fact contrary to their actual self interest - where the "pressing societal purpose" is to ensure that a cultural majority remains a cultural majority?
Ok what you are claiming basically calls the entire US educational system unjust. In fact having an education system at all is unjust. What exactly would a just educational system look like? I have never heard that allowing the majority to shape public education was something that should not happen. Who should shape it? Hans' unelected God-Emperors?
And further again...how is it contrary to somebody's best interests?
Are you seriously asserting that the US educational system educates immigrant children "contrary to their expressed interests" and "contrary to their actual self-interest", and in fact that *all* educational systems do?
Please provide an example of the way in which the US educational system educates children contrary to their expressed and actual interests.
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 03:39:16 PM
The only way to avoid being caught is to have a school that isn't even accredited for potential subsidies. Private schools are caught if accredited.
Change your mind any?
Private schools are subsidized for 60% of their costs. There are 100% un-subsidized private schools tough. In fact, with a recent SCC judgement, one individual can send his kids to a 100% un-subsidized private english school for a few years and then obtain the right to attend public school for this kid, the other kids in the family and all their descendants.
Lots of people seem to think like Malthus, that unless you attend english school you'll be unilingual francophone. It simply requires a lot more efforts from the parents. Wich is apparently something hard to get nowadays, to have parents interested in the education of their kids and making real efforts.
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 03:55:31 PM
It's something *they*, the immigrants, dislike - because they believe it harms their prospects.
Again, I've never head these immigrants complain. The Canadians do complain for them, tough.
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2011, 03:56:15 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 03:55:31 PM
It's something *they*, the immigrants, dislike - because they believe it harms their prospects.
So I was wrong and the Francophone schools do not teach English?
I keep hoping one of you Quebeckers will pop in and say something about how awesome/crappy English instruction in Quebec is or one of you other Canadians.
We are taught English from 1st grade through the end of high school, tough I find the English classes lacking in quality at most public schools.
I don't think we produce 100% bilingual people at the end of high school, wich should be our goal.
Still, we have 11 years of mandatory English classes as second language. English education is far superior at College and University level, but it's not mandatory for everyone, only for some specific field of studies, like business admin, among others. In my case, I was given the highest level of English accessible at College, the other being English litterature, and there were not enough students to warrant it, unfortunately. One of the perks of living in a small town.
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 03:59:58 PM
In point of fact, the majority of immigrant citizens prefer having their kids educated in English, and they are acting rationally to do so exactly *because* it will enable their kids to function *perfectly fine*.
They can get English education in 9 provinces out of 10. Yet, they chose to live in Quebec, the only French province. Why assimilate their kids to English if they didn't want to participate in our society?
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 04:31:19 PM
It also means that, if given a choice, it is the language you'd want to know *best* exactly because it is the most useful and functional to *you*.
what you mean to tell is that unless you are educated in a language, it is impossible to learn it.
I wonder how I learn the language, what with living in a 99% French only area, 4hrs away from Montreal and the nearest english speaking community?
Quote from: viper37 on August 30, 2011, 05:17:22 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 03:59:58 PM
In point of fact, the majority of immigrant citizens prefer having their kids educated in English, and they are acting rationally to do so exactly *because* it will enable their kids to function *perfectly fine*.
They can get English education in 9 provinces out of 10. Yet, they chose to live in Quebec, the only French province. Why assimilate their kids to English if they didn't want to participate in our society?
Because your society is bilingual. If you passed draconian laws you would probably experience a drop in immigration. You cant have it both ways.
Quote from: Barrister on August 30, 2011, 09:50:14 AM
And it does effect others. It effects the "French" nature of the province. The more conversations in English, the less French is spoken.
:lol:
Now the discussion has jumped the shark!
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 04:31:19 PM
The issue is this: is it right for a majority to impose measures upon the children of immigrants contrary to the expressed interest of the parents *and* in fact contrary to their actual self interest - where the "pressing societal purpose" is to ensure that a cultural majority remains a cultural majority?
right? I do not know. From a libertarian point of view, no.
From the perspective of any modern society, yes.
Kids are supposed to attend school until the age of 14. It is mandatory. That is a clear case of the majority deciding what is best for the children instead of the parents. Lots of parents would want their kids to stop school at a young age and start to work.
Some Jewish and Muslim communities do not want their children to be taught westerne values. Equality of men and women, the value of democracy, self choices for your future, modern biology, etc, etc. They would prefer to have their kids learn practical skills: sewing, cooking, diamond cutting, God created the universe as it is, etc,etc. We do trample their right by forcing them to either adapt their curriculum to our values or send their kids to a school that will teach these. And we do this because we believe the skills we teach are superior to what the parents have chosen for them.
Language is just another issue. I never heard of English Canadians funding movements to protest against the fact that creationism is not taught in schools. We are trempling the rights of the creationists by not teaching them a religious point of view in science.
Ethics classes teaching the basics of all religion are not accepted by all. Many Christians feel we are destroying our society with this. Yet, the courts have rejected their argument. A clear case of tyranny by the majority.
Why does it apply only for language issues? Why not make a fuss about everything else?
Quote from: viper37 on August 30, 2011, 05:17:22 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 03:59:58 PM
In point of fact, the majority of immigrant citizens prefer having their kids educated in English, and they are acting rationally to do so exactly *because* it will enable their kids to function *perfectly fine*.
They can get English education in 9 provinces out of 10. Yet, they chose to live in Quebec, the only French province. Why assimilate their kids to English if they didn't want to participate in our society?
Imaginary people are often illogical as well.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 30, 2011, 05:20:27 PM
Because your society is bilingual. If you passed draconian laws you would probably experience a drop in immigration. You cant have it both ways.
Malthus is arguing that we already have draconian laws.
We choose our immigrants, we have a pre-selection of candidates before the final approval of the feds.
Not our problem if someone tells them they can live in English in Quebec, wich is not really the case outside of Montreal and some small towns in the Eastern Townships.
The laws could be more flexible, allowing for kids arriving at high school level to keep studying in english, while not affecting future generations, but apparently, that's a legal nightmare to enact.
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 02:08:00 PM
Huh? The government isn't providing services for its *own* good out of the goodness of its heart, but for that of its citizens, who after all pay the taxes, right?
It is for the citizens to decide - but in this case, they are deciding, not in the interests of the children, but in the interests of a majority block *against* the (perceived) interests of the children and their parents.
This is a classic tyranny of the majority situation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
Tryanny of the majority involves violation of a fundamental human right; what human right is being violating by the provincial requirement that public school instruction be done in the official provincial language?
Quote from: viper37 on August 30, 2011, 05:10:38 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 03:55:31 PM
It's something *they*, the immigrants, dislike - because they believe it harms their prospects.
Again, I've never head these immigrants complain.
Selection bias . . .
Quote from: viper37 on August 30, 2011, 05:35:01 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 30, 2011, 05:20:27 PM
Because your society is bilingual. If you passed draconian laws you would probably experience a drop in immigration. You cant have it both ways.
Malthus is arguing that we already have draconian laws.
We choose our immigrants, we have a pre-selection of candidates before the final approval of the feds.
Not our problem if someone tells them they can live in English in Quebec, wich is not really the case outside of Montreal and some small towns in the Eastern Townships.
The laws could be more flexible, allowing for kids arriving at high school level to keep studying in english, while not affecting future generations, but apparently, that's a legal nightmare to enact.
on my reading of the policy on the government website such accomodations can be made. In my view your laws would become Draconian if they deny the ability to learn English.
Malthus and I part company on this point if what he is saying is that government funding models cannot favour one language over another. They certainly do in this province - where the majority of instruction is in English and French immersion classes are hard to get. I am not sure why Quebec cannot also make a political decision where it spends its recources.
I am arguing against the horrible hypothetical of a Grallonite society where French is the only language which is acceptable and the rest be damned.
If people don't want their children educated in French, why the fuck would they immigrate to Quebec? I mean, I'm sure no one (or almost no one) who doen'st speak French immigrates to Quebec simply so that their children will be educated in French, but if it's a deal-breaker, then don't move there! Shit, even moving within a country, there are tradeoffs that you have to make as to where is the best place for you to live. If you choose to immigrate to Quebec, the fact that your children will be educated in French unless you can afford private education is just a fact of life, same as there will be cold winters there. Again, if it's a deal-breaker, move somewhere else instead.
This whole debacle of a thread demonstrate, if needed be, that the extreme bad faith I referred to earlier is alive and well.
Unfortunately, and despite the widespread conceit from the Canadians here, my own political positions are those of a minority - hence why Quebec is in the doldrums it finds itself in. <_<
G.
Quote from: Grallon on August 30, 2011, 06:19:10 PM
my own political positions are those of a minority
May it ever be so.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 30, 2011, 06:02:15 PM
on my reading of the policy on the government website such accomodations can be made. In my view your laws would become Draconian if they deny the ability to learn English.
No one serious has ever advocated that since the political demise of the super extremists, in the 1970s. Who would? People will argue about the specifics of English education (what is the best age to start, how long, should there be a third language, etc.). I, for instance, argue that English teaching is obsessed with utility, and not enough about learning a language for the language's sake.
One of the last contentious issue is about the Cégep (equivalent to grade 12-13) which are, like universities, exempt from the Charter: i.e., anyone can go to a publically funded English Cégep or an English University. As Viper said, some of the more purist elements from the PQ have always been in favour of Cégep inclusion within the Charter.
Quote from: Grallon on August 30, 2011, 06:19:10 PM
This whole debacle of a thread demonstrate, if needed be, that the extreme bad faith I referred to earlier is alive and well.
Unfortunately, and despite the widespread conceit from the Canadians here, my own political positions are those of a minority - hence why Quebec is in the doldrums it finds itself in. <_<
G.
I agree, the Francophones do act in bad faith. They demand equality across Canada, but are unwilling to give it in Quebec when it comes to language.
Quote from: dps on August 30, 2011, 06:07:45 PM
If people don't want their children educated in French, why the fuck would they immigrate to Quebec? I mean, I'm sure no one (or almost no one) who doen'st speak French immigrates to Quebec simply so that their children will be educated in French, but if it's a deal-breaker, then don't move there! Shit, even moving within a country, there are tradeoffs that you have to make as to where is the best place for you to live. If you choose to immigrate to Quebec, the fact that your children will be educated in French unless you can afford private education is just a fact of life, same as there will be cold winters there. Again, if it's a deal-breaker, move somewhere else instead.
Likewise if you do not want your kid to be taught creationism, intelligent design, that Christianity is the foundation of American and human liberty, laissez faire Capitalism is the proven and infallible way to increase jobs and prosperity then do not send your kids to Texas public schools.
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 04:58:03 PM
Are you seriously asserting that the US educational system educates immigrant children "contrary to their expressed interests" and "contrary to their actual self-interest", and in fact that *all* educational systems do?
Please provide an example of the way in which the US educational system educates children contrary to their expressed and actual interests.
Our educational system is highly political and designed to pass on American values to children. Cultural values. The stuff you think is bad to pass on through education. But what exactly it entails varies from district to district and from state to state but I assure you there is plenty you would find counterproductive if the horreh of instruction in French is judged to be so.
But is it not true that Quebec has the highest rate of people who can speak both French and English? Does that not suggest the best way to teach people to be bilingual is instruction primarily in French? Doesn't knowing both languages improve the possibility of employment especially in the Federal Government? How is that counterproductive?
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2011, 09:34:51 PM
But is it not true that Quebec has the highest rate of people who can speak both French and English? Does that not suggest the best way to teach people to be bilingual is instruction primarily in French? Doesn't knowing both languages improve the possibility of employment especially in the Federal Government? How is that counterproductive?
Are there places where there is a higher rate of bilingualism where they don't mandate French? Like say Germany or Sweden?
I'm having a blast reading this thread. :lol:
Those poor angloquebecers. The most cozied and pampered minority on the planet. Such a hard life being an anglo in Montreal.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 31, 2011, 01:10:16 AM
I'm having a blast reading this thread. :lol:
Those poor angloquebecers. The most cozied and pampered minority on the planet. Such a hard life being an anglo in Montreal.
How about a franco in Ottawa?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 30, 2011, 05:55:51 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 02:08:00 PM
Huh? The government isn't providing services for its *own* good out of the goodness of its heart, but for that of its citizens, who after all pay the taxes, right?
It is for the citizens to decide - but in this case, they are deciding, not in the interests of the children, but in the interests of a majority block *against* the (perceived) interests of the children and their parents.
This is a classic tyranny of the majority situation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
Tryanny of the majority involves violation of a fundamental human right; what human right is being violating by the provincial requirement that public school instruction be done in the official provincial language?
It would be interesting to hear that folks in Quebec do not consider language rights to be fundamental.
By that token - what rights of theirs would be violated if the majority in Canada decided to make all education compulsory in English? Not a problem, right? What fundamental right is being violated? That would not be an example of the tyranny of the majority ... ?
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2011, 09:34:51 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2011, 04:58:03 PM
Are you seriously asserting that the US educational system educates immigrant children "contrary to their expressed interests" and "contrary to their actual self-interest", and in fact that *all* educational systems do?
Please provide an example of the way in which the US educational system educates children contrary to their expressed and actual interests.
Our educational system is highly political and designed to pass on American values to children. Cultural values. The stuff you think is bad to pass on through education. But what exactly it entails varies from district to district and from state to state but I assure you there is plenty you would find counterproductive if the horreh of instruction in French is judged to be so.
But is it not true that Quebec has the highest rate of people who can speak both French and English? Does that not suggest the best way to teach people to be bilingual is instruction primarily in French? Doesn't knowing both languages improve the possibility of employment especially in the Federal Government? How is that counterproductive?
Let's correct some misconceptions here ...
1. I never said it was bad to pass on cultural values via education. I said it was bad to pass on cultural values via education, where such values were (a) contrary to the values of those being educated, and (b) contrary to their actual self-interest. There may be examples of this in US education, but you haven't provided any, and if there are, I'm against that too (as possible example would be stuff like teaching creationism in science class to kids who are not Christian - it would be both against their culture, and actively bad for them. I assume you don't favour that ... ).
2. As for Quebec having the most bilingual folks and its educational system - you are mixing "correlation" and "causation". Quebec has lots of bilingual folks because it has lots of folks there who speak both English and French. This would be true whether the educational system were great or lousy. The reason so much of Canada is not bilinual, is that there is no practical way for those learning French in class to speak it, as there are very few french-speakers on the ground.
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2011, 09:31:31 PM
Quote from: dps on August 30, 2011, 06:07:45 PM
If people don't want their children educated in French, why the fuck would they immigrate to Quebec? I mean, I'm sure no one (or almost no one) who doen'st speak French immigrates to Quebec simply so that their children will be educated in French, but if it's a deal-breaker, then don't move there! Shit, even moving within a country, there are tradeoffs that you have to make as to where is the best place for you to live. If you choose to immigrate to Quebec, the fact that your children will be educated in French unless you can afford private education is just a fact of life, same as there will be cold winters there. Again, if it's a deal-breaker, move somewhere else instead.
Likewise if you do not want your kid to be taught creationism, intelligent design, that Christianity is the foundation of American and human liberty, laissez faire Capitalism is the proven and infallible way to increase jobs and prosperity then do not send your kids to Texas public schools.
So, in your guy's opinion, no-one can complain about a silly policy like teaching creationism, because, you know, love it or leave it ... ?
I'm not sure whether you seriously believe that, or are joking. Honestly, I'm not.
Quote from: Grallon on August 30, 2011, 06:19:10 PM
This whole debacle of a thread demonstrate, if needed be, that the extreme bad faith I referred to earlier is alive and well.
Unfortunately, and despite the widespread conceit from the Canadians here, my own political positions are those of a minority - hence why Quebec is in the doldrums it finds itself in. <_<
G.
see the bright side: in the old days of Paradox, Malthus would have been the moderate one. Now, he looks like the radical in this thread. Only Neil surpasses him, but you never know when he's trolling or when he's serious.
Quote from: Malthus on August 31, 2011, 08:24:29 AM
By that token - what rights of theirs would be violated if the majority in Canada decided to make all education compulsory in English? Not a problem, right? What fundamental right is being violated? That would not be an example of the tyranny of the majority ... ?
If federal Canada wanted to set up national public schools that taught in English, I can't see what fundamental right would be violated in the abstract. It might violate the Charter or the Canadian Federal Constitution, but I am not familiar enough with those documents to say. (quick check suggests that it would).
Quote from: Neil on August 31, 2011, 08:02:28 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on August 31, 2011, 01:10:16 AM
I'm having a blast reading this thread. :lol:
Those poor angloquebecers. The most cozied and pampered minority on the planet. Such a hard life being an anglo in Montreal.
How about a franco in Ottawa?
wake me up when someone threatens to shut down the Jeffery Hale in Quebec city, the only English hospital in the area.
Quote from: Malthus on August 31, 2011, 08:24:29 AM
By that token - what rights of theirs would be violated if the majority in Canada decided to make all education compulsory in English? Not a problem, right? What fundamental right is being violated? That would not be an example of the tyranny of the majority ... ?
it's been done before. Only when French was no longer a menace to English supremacy were French schools reinstated, with independant school board and sufficient financing.
Quote from: Malthus on August 31, 2011, 08:32:09 AM
(as possible example would be stuff like teaching creationism in science class to kids who are not Christian - it would be both against their culture, and actively bad for them. I assume you don't favour that ... ).
Some Jews&Muslims sects believe in creationism too, just like not all Christians believe in creationism.
You can't really split it on a religious grounds.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 31, 2011, 01:10:16 AM
Such a hard life being an anglo in Montreal.
It has been pretty dire since the Expos left.
Quote from: Malthus on August 31, 2011, 08:32:09 AM
Let's correct some misconceptions here ...
Oh good.
Quote1. I never said it was bad to pass on cultural values via education. I said it was bad to pass on cultural values via education, where such values were (a) contrary to the values of those being educated, and (b) contrary to their actual self-interest. There may be examples of this in US education, but you haven't provided any, and if there are, I'm against that too (as possible example would be stuff like teaching creationism in science class to kids who are not Christian - it would be both against their culture, and actively bad for them. I assume you don't favour that ... ).
Well we are bad then because we pass on values wihtout regard to the values of each and every person being educated. These are our values and we want them passed on. If somebody doesn't like it: well we have homeschooling and private schools. If going to our public schools is against your self interest, and frankly it probably often is since our schools are generally sub par, go someplace else. And while I certainly do NOT support teaching creationism in science class I certainly support the right of the community to teach the values it wants in the schools it pays for. Because that is simple political sanity. I have no idea why you feel like everybody is entitled to not only have access to free education but have it tailored to suit whatever they percieve their best interests are or what values they want. I see no reason why that should be the case much less that it is some sort of violation of justice. If you do not like Quebec (or Texas or California or whatever) or its schools, homeschool (though Quebec may not let you do that which would suck but I have no idea) or go to a private school. Or better yet, do not live in a place whose culture and values are perceived to be against your best interests.
Quote2. As for Quebec having the most bilingual folks and its educational system - you are mixing "correlation" and "causation". Quebec has lots of bilingual folks because it has lots of folks there who speak both English and French. This would be true whether the educational system were great or lousy. The reason so much of Canada is not bilinual, is that there is no practical way for those learning French in class to speak it, as there are very few french-speakers on the ground.
Ok then I am confused. I asked, repeatedly, if Francophone education reduces English skills or if the system is effective at teaching people English. Nobody has given me a satisfactory answer. So I foolishly then looked at rates of bilingualism in Canada and hey it is highest among the Francophone population. Overwhelmingly so. But if I cannot use actual evidence to back up my points than what do I have? You have given me nothing besides repeated over and over again the ridiculous and unsupported idea that Francophone education is not only not optimal it is actually counterproductive. Am I supposed to accept this assertion on faith?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 31, 2011, 08:41:05 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 31, 2011, 08:24:29 AM
By that token - what rights of theirs would be violated if the majority in Canada decided to make all education compulsory in English? Not a problem, right? What fundamental right is being violated? That would not be an example of the tyranny of the majority ... ?
If federal Canada wanted to set up national public schools that taught in English, I can't see what fundamental right would be violated in the abstract. It might violate the Charter or the Canadian Federal Constitution, but I am not familiar enough with those documents to say.
And there is where I think you part ways with the Quebec contingent.
In the context of this debate, arguing that language rights are not "fundamental" in some sort of objective sense is a non-starter, since it is the very basis of Quebec's historic stance.
They cannot have it both ways - they cannot argue that *their* language rights are fundamental, but those of other people are not.
If as an outsider to the situation you simply state that no language rights are fundamental, then presumably there would be no element of "tyranny of the majority" in imposing English-only education on Quebec. Which would lead to political explosions and doubtless the seperation of Quebec, because very obviously people in Quebec *believe* that language rights are fundamental. Ether they are wrong or you are.
Quote from: Malthus on August 31, 2011, 08:34:19 AM
So, in your guy's opinion, no-one can complain about a silly policy like teaching creationism, because, you know, love it or leave it ... ?
I'm not sure whether you seriously believe that, or are joking. Honestly, I'm not.
Of course you can campaign for it and complain about it. That is called politics. You are saying that somehow Quebec is violating human rights or doing something morally wrong. But to me they are doing absolutely nothing different than any American School district I have ever heard of. As for creationism: well the lost that debate...for the time being.
Quote from: Valmy on August 31, 2011, 08:52:41 AM
Oh good.
Well we are bad then because we pass on values wihtout regard to the values of each and every person being educated. These are our values and we want them passed on. If somebody doesn't like it: well we have homeschooling and private schools. If going to our public schools is against your self interest, and frankly it probably often is since our schools are generally sub par, go someplace else. And while I certainly do NOT support teaching creationism in science class I certainly support the right of the community to teach the values it wants in the schools it pays for. Because that is simple political sanity. I have no idea why you feel like everybody is entitled to not only have access to free education but have it tailored to suit whatever they percieve their best interests are or what values they want. I see no reason why that should be the case much less that it is some sort of violation of justice. If you do not like Quebec (or Texas or California or whatever) or its schools, homeschool (though Quebec may not let you do that which would suck but I have no idea) or go to a private school. Or better yet, do not live in a place whose culture and values are perceived to be against your best interests.
Let me ask you a straight question, with a simple yes or no answer ... if (say) Berkut was to complain about his local school board teaching creationism, is he wrong to do so? Yes, or no?
Quote
Ok then I am confused. I asked, repeatedly, if Francophone education reduces English skills or if the system is effective at teaching people English. Nobody has given me a satisfactory answer. So I foolishly then looked at rates of bilingualism in Canada and hey it is highest among the Francophone population. Overwhelmingly so. But if I cannot use actual evidence to back up my points than what do I have? You have given me nothing besides repeated over and over again the ridiculous and unsupported idea that Francophone education is not only not optimal it is actually counterproductive. Am I supposed to accept this assertion on faith?
I'm not an expert on the Quebec school board(s) and really do not know if they are good or not. I'm not expressing any opinion on that.
I am simply saying that one cannot make such an analysis basede on the number of bilingual folks in the province, because reality is that a province which has lots of french and english speakers in it is going to have a high rate of bilingualism whether the school boards are great or lousy.
I'm not against you using evidence in your arguments, just against using evidence that isn't relevant.
Quote from: Valmy on August 31, 2011, 09:00:25 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 31, 2011, 08:34:19 AM
So, in your guy's opinion, no-one can complain about a silly policy like teaching creationism, because, you know, love it or leave it ... ?
I'm not sure whether you seriously believe that, or are joking. Honestly, I'm not.
Of course you can campaign for it and complain about it. That is called politics. You are saying that somehow Quebec is violating human rights.
I believe that it is - the exact same rights that they themselves trumpet: language rights. As I pointed out to Minsky, it is a tough argument to make to support Quebec's majority of the population (albeit minority in Canada) "fundamental language rights", but when it comes to actual individuals, deny that they have any.
Obviously this would not pass a court of law here in Canada, because the very laws were drafted around recognizing Quebec's language rights. So all that is left is argument based on logic, which is what I'm doing.
Quote from: Malthus on August 31, 2011, 08:54:04 AM
And there is where I think you part ways with the Quebec contingent.
That may be so, I am not part of that contingent.
But . . . seems to me that they might argue that the constitutional structure of Canada, including the parts that reserve educational powers to the provinces, represents a basic political agreement that cannot be upset without also upsetting the basis of the federal union. Thus, as a matter of positive law, what you suggest would violate a fundamental constitutional right. That seems a sound argument to me. Whether it further represents a violation of basic human rights in a broader sense is a separate question, and on that I might well differ.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 31, 2011, 08:41:05 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 31, 2011, 08:24:29 AM
By that token - what rights of theirs would be violated if the majority in Canada decided to make all education compulsory in English? Not a problem, right? What fundamental right is being violated? That would not be an example of the tyranny of the majority ... ?
If federal Canada wanted to set up national public schools that taught in English, I can't see what fundamental right would be violated in the abstract. It might violate the Charter or the Canadian Federal Constitution, but I am not familiar enough with those documents to say. (quick check suggests that it would).
It would violate both (education is a provincial power, minority education rights are entrenched in the Charter).
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 31, 2011, 09:08:08 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 31, 2011, 08:54:04 AM
And there is where I think you part ways with the Quebec contingent.
That may be so, I am not part of that contingent.
But . . . seems to me that they might argue that the constitutional structure of Canada, including the parts that reserve educational powers to the provinces, represents a basic political agreement that cannot be upset without also upsetting the basis of the federal union. Thus, as a matter of positive law, what you suggest would violate a fundamental constitutional right. That seems a sound argument to me. Whether it further represents a violation of basic human rights in a broader sense is a separate question, and on that I might well differ.
Absolutely it would violate Canada's constitutional settlement - which is of course competely irrelevant. Folks in Quebec would not be outraged that such a move violated the division-of-powers provisions of the BNA or the The Constitution Act, but by the imposition of English education upon them.
The reason is right there in the preamble to the Quebec Charter of the French Language - that it is language which enables people to "articulate their destiny". Why is (say) choice of religion a fundamental right but not language?
QuoteWHEREAS the French language, the distinctive language of a people that is in the majority French-speaking, is the instrument by which that people has articulated its identity;
Whereas the National Assembly of Québec recognizes that Quebecers wish to see the quality and influence of the French language assured, and is resolved therefore to make of French the language of Government and the Law, as well as the normal and everyday language of work, instruction, communication, commerce and business;
Quote from: viper37 on August 31, 2011, 08:44:18 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 31, 2011, 08:24:29 AM
By that token - what rights of theirs would be violated if the majority in Canada decided to make all education compulsory in English? Not a problem, right? What fundamental right is being violated? That would not be an example of the tyranny of the majority ... ?
it's been done before. Only when French was no longer a menace to English supremacy were French schools reinstated, with independant school board and sufficient financing.
Was French ever a menace to "English Supremacy"? I'm not sure your Anglo cousins think like that.
Quote from: Malthus on August 31, 2011, 09:06:12 AM
I believe that it is - the exact same rights that they themselves trumpet: language rights.
Oh.
Well.
I have no idea what language rights are or how they might work in a public policy context.
Quote from: Malthus on August 31, 2011, 09:20:06 AM
Why is (say) choice of religion a fundamental right but not language?
Well the context is important. If Quebec has police arresting people for speaking or writing in other languages that violates freedom of speech which IS a fundamental right.
But there is no right to government services in the language you want. You get them in whatever language the government provides them in.
Quote from: Malthus on August 31, 2011, 09:20:06 AM
Absolutely it would violate Canada's constitutional settlement - which is of course competely irrelevant. Folks in Quebec would not be outraged that such a move violated the division-of-powers provisions of the BNA or the The Constitution Act, but by the imposition of English education upon them.
The reason is right there in the preamble to the Quebec Charter of the French Language - that it is language which enables people to "articulate their destiny". Why is (say) choice of religion a fundamental right but not language?
So now I am confused - are you taking this position yourself or is this just an attempt to point out an apparent hypocrisy on the part of your opponents? It seems to me you have the same problem in reverse - you can't simultaneously argue that language is just a tool for communication and at the same time contend that a democratically passed statute providing for free education in a particular language is manifestation of tyranny of the majority.
As an outsider to this dispute, I just start from the basic principle that absent some conflict with fundamental right, democratically elected legislature should be free to enact laws for whatever they deem to be the public good. I don't see how a law mandating that publicly funded education be provided in a particular language violates any fundamental right, and moreover, it seems reasonably connected with legitimate educational purposes. Given the constitutional structure of Canada, however, that general line of reasoning wouldn't hold for a nationwide system of schools teaching only English. And while you could respond that the Canadian constitution just represents a political bargain subject to revision, the response would be that such a revision would call into question the basis of the union itself.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2011, 09:22:13 AM
Quote from: viper37 on August 31, 2011, 08:44:18 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 31, 2011, 08:24:29 AM
By that token - what rights of theirs would be violated if the majority in Canada decided to make all education compulsory in English? Not a problem, right? What fundamental right is being violated? That would not be an example of the tyranny of the majority ... ?
it's been done before. Only when French was no longer a menace to English supremacy were French schools reinstated, with independant school board and sufficient financing.
Was French ever a menace to "English Supremacy"? I'm not sure your Anglo cousins think like that.
After the conquest.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 31, 2011, 09:39:01 AM
So now I am confused - are you taking this position yourself or is this just an attempt to point out an apparent hypocrisy on the part of your opponents?
Both.
QuoteIt seems to me you have the same problem in reverse - you can't simultaneously argue that language is just a tool for communication and at the same time contend that a democratically passed statute providing for free education in a particular language is manifestation of tyranny of the majority.
Not at all, since this is not a dilemma for me. I'm not arguing that "language is just a tool for communication". I believe that those from Quebec have a legitimate point about language rights - as language shapes culture and thought, and as language is, for some, as important a marker of identity as (say) religion.
QuoteAs an outsider to this dispute, I just start from the basic principle that absent some conflict with fundamental right, democratically elected legislature should be free to enact laws for whatever they deem to be the public good. I don't see how a law mandating that publicly funded education be provided in a particular language violates any fundamental right, and moreover, it seems reasonably connected with legitimate educational purposes. Given the constitutional structure of Canada, however, that general line of reasoning wouldn't hold for a nationwide system of schools teaching only English. And while you could respond that the Canadian constitution just represents a political bargain subject to revision, the response would be that such a revision would call into question the basis of the union itself.
I do not understand how you are defining what is or is not a "fundamental right". Are you comming from a legalistic position that this is whatever happens to be defined in the nation's constitution as such, various codes defining rights, or some philosophic notion of universal human rights outside of existing codes?
I'd base mine on a combination of all these sources, but I place more emphasis on the latter two.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_rights#Brief_History
To summarize the sources: linguistic rights are a recognized category of right, albeit not as strongly present as (say) the right to one's religion. It is however of a similar nature, part of the right of the individual or community of individuals to determine their own identity.
Quote from: Malthus on August 31, 2011, 10:17:52 AM
To summarize the sources: linguistic rights are a recognized category of right, albeit not as strongly present as (say) the right to one's religion. It is however of a similar nature, part of the right of the individual or community of individuals to determine their own identity.
And is violated by every single public education system in the world. In fact it mocks and insults the very idea of human rights: a right is supposed to protect you from government coercion not entitle you to public money and public services.
Sounds like nationalist bullshit to me.
Quote from: Valmy on August 31, 2011, 10:19:59 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 31, 2011, 10:17:52 AM
To summarize the sources: linguistic rights are a recognized category of right, albeit not as strongly present as (say) the right to one's religion. It is however of a similar nature, part of the right of the individual or community of individuals to determine their own identity.
And is violated by every single public education system in the world. In fact it mocks and insults the very idea of human rights: a right is supposed to protect you from government coercion not entitle you to public money and public services.
Sounds like nationalist bullshit to me.
Nationalist? :huh:
Also, the distinction between positive and negative rights isn't so cut an dried as all that. Why can't the US government spend tax money on building a single big Christian church?
Governments spending money to support and encourage one group to the exclusion of another can easily be a violation of rights - something your American founding fathers very obviously knew (though I suppose you could, if you wanted to, argue that they were "mocking and insulting the very idea of rights" by the Establishment Clause).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment
To bring the analogy closer, look at the treatment of education under the Establishment Clause. Payment for one religious school = bad, payment of vouchers for kids to go to any school they like = good.
Quote from: Malthus on August 31, 2011, 10:17:52 AM
To summarize the sources: linguistic rights are a recognized category of right, albeit not as strongly present as (say) the right to one's religion. It is however of a similar nature, part of the right of the individual or community of individuals to determine their own identity.
Then you still have to articulate how the Quebec law violates those rights. Public school instruction has to be conducted in *some* language. Under what theory does the state have an obligation to provide free public education in multiple languages? And on this theory, what would trigger that obligation?
Seems to me as long as Quebec permits parents to send pupils to public schools instructing in a different language, no rights are infringed.
QuoteAre you comming from a legalistic position that this is whatever happens to be defined in the nation's constitution as such, various codes defining rights, or some philosophic notion of universal human rights outside of existing codes?
I thought my position was clear - that the relevant provisions of the Canadian constitution reflect a fundamental political bargain that cannot be undone without undoing the basis of the union. That is not merely a legalistic position.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 31, 2011, 09:53:29 AM
After the conquest.
William the Bastard did do a lot to crush Anglo-saxon traditions.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 31, 2011, 10:33:50 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 31, 2011, 10:17:52 AM
To summarize the sources: linguistic rights are a recognized category of right, albeit not as strongly present as (say) the right to one's religion. It is however of a similar nature, part of the right of the individual or community of individuals to determine their own identity.
Then you still have to articulate how the Quebec law violates those rights. Public school instruction has to be conducted in *some* language. Under what theory does the state have an obligation to provide free public education in multiple languages? And on this theory, what would trigger that obligation?
Seems to me as long as Quebec permits parents to send pupils to public schools instructing in a different language, no rights are infringed.
It's a simple analogy to other such rights. Where a significant minority group exists (and pratically speaking there are only two non-Native American groups in Quebec - French and English), and granting (for the purpose of the argument) that a "fundamental right" to speak one's own language exists, then the government should be even-handed and not impose the majority language on the education of those of its citizens who do not wish such an imposition, and allow them to freely decide which of the two groups they wish to belong to, by allowing them access to the education of their choice.
It isn't as if the facilities do not exist already, and are not already part of the existing school system within Quebec. The existing legislation simply forbids access to it by immigrants. And it is not as if this exact same system doesn't already exist outside of Quebec, where parents may in point of fact choose which school system, English or French, to belong to.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 31, 2011, 10:33:50 AM
I thought my position was clear - that the relevant provisions of the Canadian constitution reflect a fundamental political bargain that cannot be undone without undoing the basis of the union. That is not merely a legalistic position.
That is something quite irrelevant and tangental to the debate, as it would be true whether or not there was any violation of rights here.
I'm asking how you define what is or is not a "fundamental right". That's a perfectly reasonable question, as you have stated you don't believe language rights are fundamental.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2011, 09:22:13 AM
Was French ever a menace to "English Supremacy"? I'm not sure your Anglo cousins think like that.
You would have to ask those who forbid French education in the US and Canada.
QuoteIt's a simple analogy to other such rights. Where a significant minority group exists (and pratically speaking there are only two non-Native American groups in Quebec - French and English), and granting (for the purpose of the argument) that a "fundamental right" to speak one's own language exists, then the government should be even-handed and not impose the majority language on the education of those of its citizens who do not wish such an imposition, and allow them to freely decide which of the two groups they wish to belong to, by allowing them access to the education of their choice.
I don't see how that logically follows. It seems to me perfectly legitimate for a state as a matter of official policy to favor one language over another in terms of the educational institutions it funds. For example, in the United States, I don't think Spanish speaking people, despite being a very significant minority, thereby acquire a fundamental right to have the state provide them with a free education in Spanish. Nor does France violate fundamental rights by having all state-funded education provided in French, rather than offering opportunities for instruction in German, Italian or Breton.
QuoteIt isn't as if the facilities do not exist already, and are not already part of the existing school system within Quebec. The existing legislation simply forbids access to it by immigrants. .
As a practical matter, however, if more persons wanted to use such facilities, more would have to be built.
Quote from: Malthus on August 31, 2011, 10:46:12 AM
That's a perfectly reasonable question, as you have stated you don't believe language rights are fundamental.
The right to have a free public education provided by the state in the language of one's choice is not a fundamental right, no.
Quote from: viper37 on August 31, 2011, 10:48:21 AM
You would have to ask those who forbid French education in the US and Canada.
Hey you can get a French education in the US if you want to pay for it.
Quote from: Malthus on August 31, 2011, 10:44:09 AM
The existing legislation simply forbids access to it by immigrants.
some immigrants. Not all of them.
And that's beside the point. Even if Quebec was to forbid public english education to everyone, it wouldn't be a violation of human rights.
English speakers are part of the majority and can not be assimilated, even in Quebec.
If Quebec was independant, you might have a point.
But as long as the province is part of Canada, it's impossible for English Canadians to be fully assimilated in Quebec. Proof: First english speaking immigrants arrived in 1763. There are still unilingual anglophones in Quebec.
The most dire problem for the english community is not "assimilation", but rather that their youngsters prefer to move to Ontario rather than stay in Montreal. Better jobs, better wages, less taxes.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2011, 10:43:55 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 31, 2011, 09:53:29 AM
After the conquest.
William the Bastard did do a lot to crush Anglo-saxon traditions.
Well, he wiped out the Saxon Aristocracy. He didn't do much to change the customs of the people. Traditional germanic traditions, wiped out in germany and scandinavia by Franks and powerful local Kings, survived in England long enough to be adopted by the Norman nobility through Magna Carta and eventually into Parliament itself.
Quote from: Viking on August 31, 2011, 10:56:12 AM
Traditional germanic traditions, wiped out in germany and scandinavia by Franks and powerful local Kings
I guess I have to disagree. Anglo-Saxon culture was so devalued that nobody even bothered to write down their traditions until the 19th century and by that time they had disappeared. To the extent local legal traditions were embraced and maintained by the new English upper classes well that is what they always did on the continent. That is what Joseph II and the French Revolution and so forth were trying to reform.
Why would Germanic Kings care enough about the common people to wipe out their customs? But anyway the Normans get a bad rap. The only thing they did to make themselves historical villains was that they won.
Malthus, I am trying to put your argument in the context of BC. The province has sole jurisdiction to allocate resources to the educational system. It funds public schools 100% and it provides a subsidy to private schools so long as the private schools meet the curriculum set by the Province.
I am not sure how that is any different from what is happening in Quebec. The only difference is that Quebec and BC set different language components and perhaps the curriculum differs in other non relevant ways as well.
Now that Oex and Viper have explained that my initial concerns were not accurate, I am not sure what the issue is. Why Can't a government make choices regarding resource allocation and promote a particular set of cultural values - isnt it the role of government to make resource allocation decisions amongst competiting interests?
Quote from: Valmy on August 31, 2011, 10:54:34 AM
Quote from: viper37 on August 31, 2011, 10:48:21 AM
You would have to ask those who forbid French education in the US and Canada.
Hey you can get a French education in the US if you want to pay for it.
After the civil war in Louisiana, French education was forbidden. Many states of New England also forbid French education after the influx of French Canadian immigrants.
The situation has been reversed since then, and there are of course private schools, but I think some public schools offer French immersion too.
There is still hope for the US ;)
Vermont says Bonjour et bienvenue to attract more francophones (http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/vermont-says-bonjour-et-bienvenue-in-bid-to-attract-more-francophones--128408638.html)
Quote from: viper37 on August 31, 2011, 10:55:31 AM
Even if Quebec was to forbid public english education to everyone, it wouldn't be a violation of human Rights.
Oex just finished telling me nobody would do such a thing...
QuoteNo one serious has ever advocated that since the political demise of the super extremists, in the 1970s. Who would?
Quote from: Valmy on August 31, 2011, 11:00:09 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 31, 2011, 10:56:12 AM
Traditional germanic traditions, wiped out in germany and scandinavia by Franks and powerful local Kings
I guess I have to disagree. Anglo-Saxon culture was so devalued that nobody even bothered to write down their traditions until the 19th century and by that time they had disappeared. To the extent local legal traditions were embraced and maintained by the new English upper classes well that is what they always did on the continent. That is what Joseph II and the French Revolution and so forth were trying to reform.
Why would Germanic Kings care enough about the common people to wipe out their customs? But anyway the Normans get a bad rap. The only thing they did to make themselves historical villains was that they won.
Not German Kings, Frankish Kings brought Roman Law to Germany in the 8th and 9th centuries. Strong Scandinavian Kings (KCIV and GIIA) either created or inherited recent absolutized monarchies. Charles Stuart tried to do the same but failed.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 31, 2011, 11:09:14 AM
Quote from: viper37 on August 31, 2011, 10:55:31 AM
Even if Quebec was to forbid public english education to everyone, it wouldn't be a violation of human Rights.
Oex just finished telling me nobody would do such a thing...
QuoteNo one serious has ever advocated that since the political demise of the super extremists, in the 1970s. Who would?
Right that was a hypothetical.
Quote from: Viking on August 31, 2011, 11:10:43 AM
Not German Kings, Frankish Kings brought Roman Law to Germany in the 8th and 9th centuries. Strong Scandinavian Kings (KCIV and GIIA) either created or inherited recent absolutized monarchies. Charles Stuart tried to do the same but failed.
The Franks were Germanic...and they did a very bad job bringing Roman Law since they did not even have it in the Frankish parts of France. Roman Law was a trait of the south.
In any case Anglo-Saxon common law made the King far more powerful than a French King so William was not going to over-ride that.
Quote from: Valmy on August 31, 2011, 11:14:32 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 31, 2011, 11:09:14 AM
Quote from: viper37 on August 31, 2011, 10:55:31 AM
Even if Quebec was to forbid public english education to everyone, it wouldn't be a violation of human Rights.
Oex just finished telling me nobody would do such a thing...
QuoteNo one serious has ever advocated that since the political demise of the super extremists, in the 1970s. Who would?
Right that was a hypothetical.
It is only a hypothetical because nobody would ever commit such a breach of our Charter's protection of free speech. At least that is what Oex tells me is the case. But now that Viper thinks it is no big deal and Grallon is definitely on side (not to mention you missed the point entirely) I am not so sure.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 31, 2011, 11:19:14 AM
It is only a hypothetical because nobody would ever commit such a breach of our Charter's protection of free speech.
Yeah what Viper said had nothing to do with free speech. He said publicly funded education.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 31, 2011, 11:09:14 AM
Oex just finished telling me nobody would do such a thing...
Enough hypocritical shenanigans from misguided people like Malthus in his current stubborn mood and it might tempt a majority to swing back in that direction.
G.
Quote from: viper37 on August 31, 2011, 11:07:08 AM
After the civil war in Louisiana, French education was forbidden. Many states of New England also forbid French education after the influx of French Canadian immigrants.
The situation has been reversed since then, and there are of course private schools, but I think some public schools offer French immersion too.
There is still hope for the US ;)
Vermont says Bonjour et bienvenue to attract more francophones (http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/vermont-says-bonjour-et-bienvenue-in-bid-to-attract-more-francophones--128408638.html)
I would like to point out that teaching Lousianans to speak English had no effect on their eccentric swamp culture and they remain just as corrupt as before. Cultural genocide failed completely.
Quote from: Viking on August 31, 2011, 11:10:43 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 31, 2011, 11:00:09 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 31, 2011, 10:56:12 AM
Traditional germanic traditions, wiped out in germany and scandinavia by Franks and powerful local Kings
I guess I have to disagree. Anglo-Saxon culture was so devalued that nobody even bothered to write down their traditions until the 19th century and by that time they had disappeared. To the extent local legal traditions were embraced and maintained by the new English upper classes well that is what they always did on the continent. That is what Joseph II and the French Revolution and so forth were trying to reform.
Why would Germanic Kings care enough about the common people to wipe out their customs? But anyway the Normans get a bad rap. The only thing they did to make themselves historical villains was that they won.
Not German Kings, Frankish Kings brought Roman Law to Germany in the 8th and 9th centuries. Strong Scandinavian Kings (KCIV and GIIA) either created or inherited recent absolutized monarchies. Charles Stuart tried to do the same but failed.
GIIA? :hmm:
Quote from: viper37 on August 31, 2011, 10:48:21 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2011, 09:22:13 AM
Was French ever a menace to "English Supremacy"? I'm not sure your Anglo cousins think like that.
You would have to ask those who forbid French education in the US and Canada.
There are none in the US I know of.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2011, 11:29:28 AM
There are none in the US I know of.
Yes that was what he said.
Supposedly we outlawed it in Louisiana and New England in the 19th century. But now we are awesome.
Sweden has school vouchers for everyone. Problem solved.
Quote from: Viking on August 31, 2011, 10:56:12 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2011, 10:43:55 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 31, 2011, 09:53:29 AM
After the conquest.
William the Bastard did do a lot to crush Anglo-saxon traditions.
Well, he wiped out the Saxon Aristocracy. He didn't do much to change the customs of the people. Traditional germanic traditions, wiped out in germany and scandinavia by Franks and powerful local Kings, survived in England long enough to be adopted by the Norman nobility through Magna Carta and eventually into Parliament itself.
The idea of the Magna Carta and parliament are not exclusively Germanic or Scandinavian. Linguistically you can see a massive change. An English speaker can sort of make out Chauncer. Pre-Conquest writings are all but impossible to make out.
Quote from: The Brain on August 31, 2011, 11:28:31 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 31, 2011, 11:10:43 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 31, 2011, 11:00:09 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 31, 2011, 10:56:12 AM
Traditional germanic traditions, wiped out in germany and scandinavia by Franks and powerful local Kings
I guess I have to disagree. Anglo-Saxon culture was so devalued that nobody even bothered to write down their traditions until the 19th century and by that time they had disappeared. To the extent local legal traditions were embraced and maintained by the new English upper classes well that is what they always did on the continent. That is what Joseph II and the French Revolution and so forth were trying to reform.
Why would Germanic Kings care enough about the common people to wipe out their customs? But anyway the Normans get a bad rap. The only thing they did to make themselves historical villains was that they won.
Not German Kings, Frankish Kings brought Roman Law to Germany in the 8th and 9th centuries. Strong Scandinavian Kings (KCIV and GIIA) either created or inherited recent absolutized monarchies. Charles Stuart tried to do the same but failed.
GIIA? :hmm:
To elaborate: when GIIA ascended the throne he had to sign a constitution that essentially made him parliament's bitch. Throughout his career he had to cajole, threaten and inspire parliament to get his way. Now since he was GIIA this wasn't a major problem but it still had to be done. After his death a new constitution was created that followed in the same tracks. It wasn't until Charles XI in the 1680s that absolutism came to be in Sweden, and it lasted 40 years. Then parliament regained power with a vengeance.
Quote from: Valmy on August 31, 2011, 11:00:09 AM
The only thing they did to make themselves historical villains was that they won.
Well the Harrowing of the North...
Quote from: viper37 on August 31, 2011, 11:07:08 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 31, 2011, 10:54:34 AM
Quote from: viper37 on August 31, 2011, 10:48:21 AM
You would have to ask those who forbid French education in the US and Canada.
Hey you can get a French education in the US if you want to pay for it.
After the civil war in Louisiana, French education was forbidden. Many states of New England also forbid French education after the influx of French Canadian immigrants.
The situation has been reversed since then, and there are of course private schools, but I think some public schools offer French immersion too.
There is still hope for the US ;)
Vermont says Bonjour et bienvenue to attract more francophones (http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/vermont-says-bonjour-et-bienvenue-in-bid-to-attract-more-francophones--128408638.html)
Anything closer to the present?
Quote from: The Brain on August 31, 2011, 11:38:08 AM
To elaborate: when GIIA ascended the throne he had to sign a constitution that essentially made him parliament's bitch. Throughout his career he had to cajole, threaten and inspire parliament to get his way. Now since he was GIIA this wasn't a major problem but it still had to be done. After his death a new constitution was created that followed in the same tracks. It wasn't until Charles XI in the 1680s that absolutism came to be in Sweden, and it lasted 40 years. Then parliament regained power with a vengeance.
I was under the Impression that it GIIA got a ready made centralized state from his father... Note, the institutions I am talking about are the ones at a local level, the village, county and parish level of government, not the national level. The only real relevance of Parliament here is that in England it stopped the King from centralizing away traditional legal and governmental structures.
I may also be assuming much of what was happening in denmark at that time was also happening in sweden at the same time and I might also misunderstand some of what the effects of the Indelingsvärket were.
At this time in Iceland the Parliament (think of it as a local council of large farmers) was abolished and royal judges appear as well as written law books (as opposed to traditionally preserved custom).
Quote from: Valmy on August 31, 2011, 11:16:02 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 31, 2011, 11:10:43 AM
Not German Kings, Frankish Kings brought Roman Law to Germany in the 8th and 9th centuries. Strong Scandinavian Kings (KCIV and GIIA) either created or inherited recent absolutized monarchies. Charles Stuart tried to do the same but failed.
The Franks were Germanic...
Interesting side discussion that perhaps sheds some illumination on the main discussion.
"Germany" didn't exist in the 8th century, nor were there "German" kings in any meaningul sense of the word.
"Germanic" either refers to:
(1) a highly disparate (and culturally and linguisitically diverse) group of peoples whose only common linkage is living in an area delimited by classsical Greek and and Roman geogrpahers, or
(2) a broad language family existing over a couple of thousand years, and of which many of the constitutent members would be mutually unintelligible.
In short, talking about "Germany" in the late classical/early modern era is a dangerous anachronism, and the term Germanic is of little use aside from historical linguistics or classical literary criticism.
Yes - some "Germanic" peoples at various points in histories had "free" tribal assemblies. Then again, so did the Romans.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2011, 11:39:45 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 31, 2011, 11:00:09 AM
The only thing they did to make themselves historical villains was that they won.
Well the Harrowing of the North...
True, William even regretted that one. But it was a time when it was important to appear strong. It was easy to get carried away.
Quote from: Viking on August 31, 2011, 11:54:08 AM
Quote from: The Brain on August 31, 2011, 11:38:08 AM
To elaborate: when GIIA ascended the throne he had to sign a constitution that essentially made him parliament's bitch. Throughout his career he had to cajole, threaten and inspire parliament to get his way. Now since he was GIIA this wasn't a major problem but it still had to be done. After his death a new constitution was created that followed in the same tracks. It wasn't until Charles XI in the 1680s that absolutism came to be in Sweden, and it lasted 40 years. Then parliament regained power with a vengeance.
I was under the Impression that it GIIA got a ready made centralized state from his father... Note, the institutions I am talking about are the ones at a local level, the village, county and parish level of government, not the national level. The only real relevance of Parliament here is that in England it stopped the King from centralizing away traditional legal and governmental structures.
I may also be assuming much of what was happening in denmark at that time was also happening in sweden at the same time and I might also misunderstand some of what the effects of the Indelingsvärket were.
At this time in Iceland the Parliament (think of it as a local council of large farmers) was abolished and royal judges appear as well as written law books (as opposed to traditionally preserved custom).
I know way too little about Denmark to say much, except to note that there are bigger differences between the countries than I think many people (Swedes and Danes) realize. They have the same shit we have over here, but it's the little differences...
Some comments about Sweden (not arguing with you, just some stuff that may be of interest to our readers): there had been major work done under GIIA's grandfather Gustav Vasa (Lutheranism, hereditary monarchy and others) but my impression is that much of the reforms of the actual administration were done under GIIA. Gustav Vasa ruled without having to ask anyone's permission (he just had to crush some major rebellions now and then) but he still ruled in many ways like a medieval monarch. His administration was still intensely personal, he had little staff and things were based on personal interactions and loyalties. After him his sons were too busy being deposed or waging civil war to get much development done in their day.
The state GIIA inherited was still fairly rudimentary. GIIA was in many ways the creator of the system of administration that was the basis for Sweden's great power era. Keeping track of every indivdual in the kingdom in order to be able to conscript huge numbers, founding or enlarging universities, creating regional courts of law to reduce the workload for the royal council etc etc. Under GIIA the state became a much bigger player on the local level. Though he still needed parliament approval, and the farmers (
bönder) remained free and had representatives in parliament etc.
I don't know a great deal about Sweden's legal history but I am not aware of any great changes in the 16th-17th centuries. The first modern collected national law didn't come into being until 1734.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 31, 2011, 11:09:14 AM
Quote from: viper37 on August 31, 2011, 10:55:31 AM
Even if Quebec was to forbid public english education to everyone, it wouldn't be a violation of human Rights.
Oex just finished telling me nobody would do such a thing...
QuoteNo one serious has ever advocated that since the political demise of the super extremists, in the 1970s. Who would?
That was highly hypotetical. Nor have I said I would support such a measure. Just that banning public education in one language is not a violation of human rights. Unless Canadians want to admit to crimes against humanity... Right, I tought so too ;)
While in Canada, it is impossible, that's a given. If Quebec becomes independant 100 years from now, I don't know. Lots of things can change. Maybe the Grallonesque faction will stage a Coup d'État, take over the country, march the English Canadians to concentration camps, who knows ;)
What Oex says is true, and I don't even think the original law 101 advocated that.
Just forget about that happening during our lifetimes.
Quote from: Valmy on August 31, 2011, 11:22:11 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 31, 2011, 11:19:14 AM
It is only a hypothetical because nobody would ever commit such a breach of our Charter's protection of free speech.
Yeah what Viper said had nothing to do with free speech. He said publicly funded education.
Are you trolling or do you really not see a violation of rights if the State prohibits the freedom of someone to learn a language?
Quote from: viper37 on August 31, 2011, 12:32:51 PM
Just that banning public education in one language is not a violation of human rights.
It would be a clear violation of the Charter just as the first Language Bill was.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 31, 2011, 12:36:13 PM
Are you trolling or do you really not see a violation of rights if the State prohibits the freedom of someone to learn a language?
Oh I would but that was not what Viper said. He said banning publicly funding it. You could still be educated in whatever language you want just not at public expense. Not funding something is not the same as prohibiting it.
Quote from: Valmy on August 31, 2011, 11:30:56 AM
Supposedly we outlawed it in Louisiana and New England in the 19th century. But now we are awesome.
1860s
The use of French in public activities is interdicted by General Butler to punish Louisiana for being allied with the Confederate States.
1915
Suppression of the French language in the schools by the State Board of Education; Children are punished when they speak French.For the modern part, French revival & all:
1969
With the support of CODOFIL, Louisiana elementary schools begin offering 30 minutes of French per day.
Arrival of the first CODOFIL teachers from France and Quebec.
1971
Louisiana elects its first French-speaking governor of the 20th century, Edwin Edwards
etc, etc.
Quote from: Valmy on August 31, 2011, 12:38:58 PM
He said banning publicly funding it.
No, he said banning.
Quote from: Viking on August 31, 2011, 11:10:43 AMNot German Kings, Frankish Kings brought Roman Law to Germany in the 8th and 9th centuries.
First, I don't think that the dichotomy between "German" and "Frankish" kings makes any sense considering the Franks were just one of the tribal groups of the Germanic region.
Second, while there was obviously Roman and Christian influence, the elements of traditional tribal common law meshed with these and stayed around for centuries, often until the XVIII or even XIX century. There are still laws in Germany's civil code that can be traced to ancient Saxon laws for example.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 31, 2011, 12:37:43 PM
It would be a clear violation of the Charter just as the first Language Bill was.
We could work around it, like the Canadian provinces did for many years, without any kind of problems.
We could merge the english School Boards with the French ones, deprive them of resources, make life tough for them. That's not a clear violation of the Charter.
But I just don't see it happening.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 31, 2011, 12:39:52 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 31, 2011, 12:38:58 PM
He said banning publicly funding it.
No, he said banning.
banning publicly funded schools. And again, it's science fiction, even in an independant Quebec.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 31, 2011, 12:39:52 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 31, 2011, 12:38:58 PM
He said banning publicly funding it.
No, he said banning.
:hmm:
QuoteEven if Quebec was to forbid public english education to everyone
Quote from: viper37 on August 31, 2011, 12:41:10 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 31, 2011, 12:37:43 PM
It would be a clear violation of the Charter just as the first Language Bill was.
We could work around it, like the Canadian provinces did for many years, without any kind of problems.
We could merge the english School Boards with the French ones, deprive them of resources, make life tough for them. That's not a clear violation of the Charter.
But I just don't see it happening.
You are backtracking now. Originally you said even if the government banned people from learning English it would not be a problem. Clearly such a ban would be.
As I said I dont have as much of an issue with government deciding on funding issues. That is maybe what you meant.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 31, 2011, 11:06:55 AM
Malthus, I am trying to put your argument in the context of BC. The province has sole jurisdiction to allocate resources to the educational system. It funds public schools 100% and it provides a subsidy to private schools so long as the private schools meet the curriculum set by the Province.
I am not sure how that is any different from what is happening in Quebec. The only difference is that Quebec and BC set different language components and perhaps the curriculum differs in other non relevant ways as well.
Now that Oex and Viper have explained that my initial concerns were not accurate, I am not sure what the issue is. Why Can't a government make choices regarding resource allocation and promote a particular set of cultural values - isnt it the role of government to make resource allocation decisions amongst competiting interests?
Funding only those schools teaching in one of the two official languages where there are major populations who speak both is of concern for the same reason that a province deciding to fund the Catholic Church and only the Catholic Church would be of concern. It is supporting one population group of citizens over another, using common tax money to do so.
[I know this is not what is at stake in Quebec, where in fact both are funded - it is the restrictions on choice of which one to join which is of issue. But the principle is the same].
Obviously, governments make some sorts of choices between competing groups all the time. Some types of groups, such as religious groups, are privileged in that the government *not* acting even-handedly between 'em raises concerns (this is addressed in the US by the Establishment Clause]. I'm saying that those in Quebec have a legitimate point that linguistic groups are also such a group.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 31, 2011, 12:45:51 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 31, 2011, 12:41:10 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 31, 2011, 12:37:43 PM
It would be a clear violation of the Charter just as the first Language Bill was.
We could work around it, like the Canadian provinces did for many years, without any kind of problems.
We could merge the english School Boards with the French ones, deprive them of resources, make life tough for them. That's not a clear violation of the Charter.
But I just don't see it happening.
You are backtracking now. Originally you said even if the government banned people from learning English it would not be a problem. Clearly such a ban would be.
As I said I dont have as much of an issue with government deciding on funding issues. That is maybe what you meant.
I'm not going to look back, but if I said that, I made a mistake. I was obviously refering to public education.
Quote from: Malthus on August 31, 2011, 12:48:22 PM
Funding only those schools teaching in one of the two official languages where there are major populations who speak both is of concern for the same reason that a province deciding to fund the Catholic Church and only the Catholic Church would be of concern. It is supporting one population group of citizens over another, using common tax money to do so.
Who gets to decide what constitutes a "major" population such that the government must provide x funding toward it. That decision seems to fall squarely within the jurisdiction of the Provincial government. I think the issue of whether the language is an official language or not is a red herring. There is no suggestion the Official Languages Act is being violated and if it was then there are remedies for that. Students could sue for 500,000 for not being able to order 7up in English in the school cafeteria. :D
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 31, 2011, 01:22:25 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 31, 2011, 12:48:22 PM
Funding only those schools teaching in one of the two official languages where there are major populations who speak both is of concern for the same reason that a province deciding to fund the Catholic Church and only the Catholic Church would be of concern. It is supporting one population group of citizens over another, using common tax money to do so.
Who gets to decide what constitutes a "major" population such that the government must provide x funding toward it. That decision seems to fall squarely within the jurisdiction of the Provincial government. I think the issue of whether the language is an official language or not is a red herring. There is no suggestion the Official Languages Act is being violated and if it was then there are remedies for that. Students could sue for 500,000 for not being able to order 7up in English in the school cafeteria. :D
Seems a bit of a red herring of a problem to me - devising rules as to what constitutes a "major population" for the purposes of language and education ought not to be impossible, after all the Canadian Constitution Act already requires such an exercise.
Quote23 ...
(3) The right of citizens of Canada under subsections (1) and (2) to have their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in the language of the English or French linguistic minority population of a province
(a) applies wherever in the province the number of children of citizens who have such a right is sufficient to warrant the provision to them out of public funds of minority language instruction; and
(b) includes, where the number of those children so warrants, the right to have them receive that instruction in minority language educational facilities provided out of public funds.
Ok, then it seems we are saying the same thing. So long as they stay onside their constitutional obligations - which they appear to be doing - what is the problem? The Province gets to make a judgment about funding in the first instance and that decision can be challenged if it breaches the Constitutional requirement.
Quote from: viper37 on August 31, 2011, 01:15:15 PM
I'm not going to look back, but if I said that, I made a mistake. I was obviously refering to public education.
That is what you said you were referring to. It was always clear to me, but your use of the phrase "banning public education in one language" was perhaps unfortunate when you didn't mean banning (which means to make it unlawful), but rather "failure to fund."
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 31, 2011, 01:42:35 PM
Ok, then it seems we are saying the same thing. So long as they stay onside their constitutional obligations - which they appear to be doing - what is the problem? The Province gets to make a judgment about funding in the first instance that that decision can be challenged if it breaches the Constitutional requirement.
It addresses your original position, and that of others such as Minsky and Valmy, that payment out of government funds for minority language education is not any sort of "right", provincial governments ought to be able to direct educational spending as they see fit, and it is not possible to determine what constitutes a sufficiently large minority group. Of course it's a "right", not only are such "rights" commonplace, they are imbedded in our constitution.
My complaint is with the way both the constitution act and the Quebec law is drafted to carefully exclude the rights of recent immigrants to choose which linguistic group they wish to be classified as.
Quote(1) Citizens of Canada
(a) whose first language learned and still understood is that of the English or French linguistic minority population of the province in which they reside, or
(b) who have received their primary school instruction in Canada in English or French and reside in a province where the language in which they received that instruction is the language of the English or French linguistic minority population of the province,
have the right to have their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in that language in that province.
I can think of no principled reason for this sort of pettifogging, which was inserted entirely to appease Quebec.
Tangentally, I also dislike limiting the languages to English and French. But that objection isn't relevant here.
Quote from: Malthus on August 31, 2011, 02:25:14 PM
Tangentally, I also dislike limiting the languages to English and French. But that objection isn't relevant here.
:wacko:
Wow.
Talk about counter-productive.
Quote from: Valmy on August 31, 2011, 02:34:41 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 31, 2011, 02:25:14 PM
Tangentally, I also dislike limiting the languages to English and French. But that objection isn't relevant here.
:wacko:
Wow.
Talk about counter-productive.
Huh? Why? If some significant minority of the population uses a language other than English or French, what harm is caused by it, or educating kids in it? Some Euros seem to survive just fine with several languages, like Switzerland - it has four official languages.
Anyway, I have yet to hear some sort of retraction about there being no such thing as an "right" to public funds being used for education in a minority official language. :D
Anyways, I agree with Malthus.
We must extend bilingual Ukrainian education across the country!
Quote from: Malthus on August 31, 2011, 02:44:59 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 31, 2011, 02:34:41 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 31, 2011, 02:25:14 PM
Tangentally, I also dislike limiting the languages to English and French. But that objection isn't relevant here.
:wacko:
Wow.
Talk about counter-productive.
Huh? Why? If some significant minority of the population uses a language other than English or French, what harm is caused by it, or educating kids in it? Some Euros seem to survive just fine with several languages, like Switzerland - it has four official languages.
The why of your question is for the consideration of the political process.
Quote from: Barrister on August 31, 2011, 02:48:48 PM
Anyways, I agree with Malthus.
We must extend bilingual Ukrainian education across the country!
I knew the horrible hypothetical wouldnt take long to be found.
Quote from: grumbler on August 31, 2011, 02:22:17 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 31, 2011, 01:15:15 PM
I'm not going to look back, but if I said that, I made a mistake. I was obviously refering to public education.
That is what you said you were referring to. It was always clear to me, but your use of the phrase "banning public education in one language" was perhaps unfortunate when you didn't mean banning (which means to make it unlawful), but rather "failure to fund."
Ah, ok, sorry :)
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 31, 2011, 02:50:05 PM
The why of your question is for the consideration of the political process.
I'm asking why even considering it is considered = :wacko:
Quote from: Malthus on August 31, 2011, 02:44:59 PM
Huh? Why? If some significant minority of the population uses a language other than English or French, what harm is caused by it, or educating kids in it?
Increasing the number of languages used by a country by design? Oh come now man, your religion even preaches that multiple languages are a curse of God. That is just a horrible idea on so many levels.
Quote from: Barrister on August 31, 2011, 02:48:48 PM
Anyways, I agree with Malthus.
We must extend bilingual Ukrainian education across the country!
You laugh, but in point of fact, Carl was educated to be bilingual in Ukranian. When he reaches grade school, it will be trilingual in Ukranian, English and French.
Studies show that early training in multiple languages is a good thing for mental development.
Quote from: Valmy on August 31, 2011, 02:51:46 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 31, 2011, 02:44:59 PM
Huh? Why? If some significant minority of the population uses a language other than English or French, what harm is caused by it, or educating kids in it?
Increasing the number of languages used by a country by design? Oh come now man, your religion even preaches that multiple languages are a curse of God. That is just a horrible idea on so many levels.
Dude, Babel was a myth. Maybe in Texas use of Biblical mythology to establish current policies is a good idea, but not in the modern world. :P
Seriously, though, there is nothing wrong (and much that is right) with being multi-lingual.
Quote from: Malthus on August 31, 2011, 02:53:49 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 31, 2011, 02:48:48 PM
Anyways, I agree with Malthus.
We must extend bilingual Ukrainian education across the country!
You laugh, but in point of fact, Carl was educated to be bilingual in Ukranian. When he reaches grade school, it will be trilingual in Ukranian, English and French.
Studies show that early training in multiple languages is a good thing for mental development.
Who is laughing? I fully support your efforts to keep Ukrainian informed in the tongue of the Motherland.
Quote from: Malthus on August 31, 2011, 02:55:29 PM
Dude, Babel was a myth.
A myth to teach an important spiritual lesson! Namely: having lots of different languages makes it harder to do stuff. Sure reject the ancient wisdom of you heritage. You are going all Ukranian now anyway I am sure they have lots of great teachings on stuff like boiling dumplings and shooting people on the Odessa steps.
QuoteSeriously, though, there is nothing wrong (and much that is right) with being multi-lingual.
Indeed there is much right in being multi-lingual. But preserving language minority enclaves? That is right out of the book of 'How Not to Assimilate Immigrants'.
Quote from: Malthus on August 31, 2011, 02:51:38 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 31, 2011, 02:50:05 PM
The why of your question is for the consideration of the political process.
I'm asking why even considering it is considered = :wacko:
A considerable percentage of the BC population speak languages other than English and French. In some pockets of the lower mainland those other languages would be spoken by the majority. By your logic the government would have a legal obligation to provide education in those other languages. I dont see the utility of doing that nor do I think the provinces would have the resources to do it.
In a perfect world where the government has unlimited resources (actually Berkut's nightmare) and can be all things to all people then perhaps the government might cater to everyone's particular cultural and linguistic nuance.
But until that day comes the allocation of scarce resources is a political decision.
Quote from: Valmy on August 31, 2011, 03:01:19 PM
Indeed there is much right in being multi-lingual. But preserving language minority enclaves? That is right out of the book of 'How Not to Assimilate Immigrants'.
Heh, what happened to the "but of course they will all learn English anyway so what's the problem?' Valmy that was on such conspicuous display a few pages ago? :lol:
Quote from: Barrister on August 31, 2011, 02:48:48 PM
Anyways, I agree with Malthus.
We must extend bilingual Ukrainian education across the country!
The preschool i went to also taught in just ukrainian. Hearing people "speaking in tongues" through the wall while in the religious part of the day was always surreal. And don't worry malthus, it was a private catholic school lol
Quote from: Malthus on August 31, 2011, 02:53:49 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 31, 2011, 02:48:48 PM
Anyways, I agree with Malthus.
We must extend bilingual Ukrainian education across the country!
You laugh, but in point of fact, Carl was educated to be bilingual in Ukranian. When he reaches grade school, it will be trilingual in Ukranian, English and French.
Studies show that early training in multiple languages is a good thing for mental development.
i'm proof that that theory is inaccurate :D
Quote from: HVC on August 31, 2011, 03:10:28 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 31, 2011, 02:53:49 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 31, 2011, 02:48:48 PM
Anyways, I agree with Malthus.
We must extend bilingual Ukrainian education across the country!
You laugh, but in point of fact, Carl was educated to be bilingual in Ukranian. When he reaches grade school, it will be trilingual in Ukranian, English and French.
Studies show that early training in multiple languages is a good thing for mental development.
i'm proof that that theory is inaccurate :D
To be honest, I think that Malthus's statement only goes to show thatlearning multiple languages is good as long as you can speak them correctly or coherently. :console:
Quote from: Malthus on August 31, 2011, 03:07:24 PM
Heh, what happened to the "but of course they will all learn English anyway so what's the problem?' Valmy that was on such conspicuous display a few pages ago? :lol:
That was in response to something specific that Oex said where he basically said you come out of the Quebec educational system knowing English...or at least I thought he was saying that. And the observation that in Quebec they do indeed learn English. Or seem to. I was not being theoretical.
But for fucksake Malthus if Quebec did not exist you would not ship over a bunch of Francophones and invent it. It is there so we have to deal with the reality the best we can. We are not going to artificially create a German speaking state in the US because that would just make things more difficult. But if there were a German state, well you work with it. Likewise if Quebec was 100% French speaking I am sure they would not work hard to create their anglophone minority. That would just be daft.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 31, 2011, 03:01:25 PM
A considerable percentage of the BC population speak languages other than English and French. In some pockets of the lower mainland those other languages would be spoken by the majority. By your logic the government would have a legal obligation to provide education in those other languages. I dont see the utility of doing that nor do I think the provinces would have the resources to do it.
In a perfect world where the government has unlimited resources (actually Berkut's nightmare) and can be all things to all people then perhaps the government might cater to everyone's particular cultural and linguistic nuance.
But until that day comes the allocation of scarce resources is a political decision.
So your argument depends on it costing significantly more resources to teach a child in one language over another. Seems a weak reed.
Moreover, my argument only requires such teaching if a sizable portion of people want it, so as to make it a viable proposition. Is there a significant demand for primary teaching in other languages? Or do parents there in fact prefer English as a primary language of instruction for practical reasons, making the debate somewhat moot?
Quote from: Barrister on August 31, 2011, 03:11:40 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 31, 2011, 03:10:28 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 31, 2011, 02:53:49 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 31, 2011, 02:48:48 PM
Anyways, I agree with Malthus.
We must extend bilingual Ukrainian education across the country!
You laugh, but in point of fact, Carl was educated to be bilingual in Ukranian. When he reaches grade school, it will be trilingual in Ukranian, English and French.
Studies show that early training in multiple languages is a good thing for mental development.
i'm proof that that theory is inaccurate :D
To be honest, I think that Malthus's statement only goes to show thatlearning multiple languages is good as long as you can speak them correctly or coherently. :console:
it's like juggling balls. it's easier when you have just one :lol:
Quote from: Valmy on August 31, 2011, 03:12:17 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 31, 2011, 03:07:24 PM
Heh, what happened to the "but of course they will all learn English anyway so what's the problem?' Valmy that was on such conspicuous display a few pages ago? :lol:
That was in response to something specific that Oex said. And the observation that in Quebec they do indeed learn English. Or seem to. I was not being theoretical.
But for fucksake Malthus if Quebec did not exist we would not ship over a bunch of Francophones and invent it. It is there so we have to deal with the reality the best we can. We are not going to artificially create a German speaking state in the US because that would just make things more difficult. But if there were a German state, well you work with it.
You are missing my point. I'm not asking to deliberately ship in Chinese-speakers. What I'm saying is that, if in some future world Chinese became the international language of commerce and science, and a significant portion of Chinese-speakers were Canadian citizens, and they thought it was to their advantage to be educated in Chinese, why not deal with that reality - rather than tearing our hair out and "oh noes, we must protect the primacy of English at all costs!!!!!oneone"
Quote from: viper37 on August 31, 2011, 11:07:08 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 31, 2011, 10:54:34 AM
Quote from: viper37 on August 31, 2011, 10:48:21 AM
You would have to ask those who forbid French education in the US and Canada.
Hey you can get a French education in the US if you want to pay for it.
After the civil war in Louisiana, French education was forbidden. Many states of New England also forbid French education after the influx of French Canadian immigrants.
The situation has been reversed since then, and there are of course private schools, but I think some public schools offer French immersion too.
Once again, over a hundred years ago. Can you at least snivel like a bitch about more contemporary issues?
Quote from: Malthus on August 31, 2011, 03:15:53 PM
You are missing my point. I'm not asking to deliberately ship in Chinese-speakers. What I'm saying is that, if in some future world Chinese became the international language of commerce and science, and a significant portion of Chinese-speakers were Canadian citizens, and they thought it was to their advantage to be educated in Chinese, why not deal with that reality - rather than tearing our hair out and "oh noes, we must protect the primacy of English at all costs!!!!!oneone"
That doesn't sound like your point at all :hmm:
Sure if Canada decides it is good policy and a good idea to teach these people in Chinese and does so then great. But that is different than offering them Chinese education simply because they should get it because they have a right to it.
Quote from: Malthus on August 31, 2011, 03:12:37 PM
So your argument depends on it costing significantly more resources to teach a child in one language over another. Seems a weak reed.
Moreover, my argument only requires such teaching if a sizable portion of people want it, so as to make it a viable proposition. Is there a significant demand for primary teaching in other languages? Or do parents there in fact prefer English as a primary language of instruction for practical reasons, making the debate somewhat moot?
No, my argument is that the allocation of resources is a political decision to be made by each of the Provinces. You try to get around your problem by suggesting that the people who speak other languages dont actually want to be taught in those other languages. But that avoids the real question - should the government be legally required to provide such services IF they did.
I see no compelling reason to require the government to do so.
Quote from: Malthus on August 31, 2011, 02:25:14 PM
It addresses your original position, and that of others such as Minsky and Valmy, that payment out of government funds for minority language education is not any sort of "right", provincial governments ought to be able to direct educational spending as they see fit, and it is not possible to determine what constitutes a sufficiently large minority group. Of course it's a "right", not only are such "rights" commonplace, they are imbedded in our constitution.
but this confuses two different notions of "right"
A Canadian who is the member of a particular linguistic minority has the right to obtain payment out of government funds for their minority language education because the organic law so provides. That is just simple application of the rule of law.
You raised the separate question of whether outside of this positive legislative enactment, there is some fundamental human right to receive a free public education in the language of one's choosing (at least one some sort of unspecified population threshold is reached). I don't think there is, and I don't think a credible argument can be made in favor of that proposition.
You then point out that such a position would not be acceptable to the "Quebec contigent" ("QC"). Of course that is not a problem for me, not being a member. But even here, I am not sure that applies, at least for all. I will let them state their own positions if they wish. But it seems to me that they could consistently take the position that while the right to obtain a French education in national Canada is not a fundamental human right in the natural right sense, it is a communal right the violation of which undoes Canada's pact of union (and hence the legitimacy of any federal enactment that purports to affect Quebec). That is because the Canadian federal constitution appears explicitly to be a union of provinces (and not peoples) and the constitutional provisions at issue are critical components of the political bargain that undergirds that union.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 31, 2011, 03:40:29 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 31, 2011, 02:25:14 PM
It addresses your original position, and that of others such as Minsky and Valmy, that payment out of government funds for minority language education is not any sort of "right", provincial governments ought to be able to direct educational spending as they see fit, and it is not possible to determine what constitutes a sufficiently large minority group. Of course it's a "right", not only are such "rights" commonplace, they are imbedded in our constitution.
but this confuses two different notions of "right"
A Canadian who is the member of a particular linguistic minority has the right to obtain payment out of government funds for their minority language education because the organic law so provides. That is just simple application of the rule of law.
You raised the separate question of whether outside of this positive legislative enactment, there is some fundamental human right to receive a free public education in the language of one's choosing (at least one some sort of unspecified population threshold is reached). I don't think there is, and I don't think a credible argument can be made in favor of that proposition.
You then point out that such a position would not be acceptable to the "Quebec contigent" ("QC"). Of course that is not a problem for me, not being a member. But even here, I am not sure that applies, at least for all. I will let them state their own positions if they wish. But it seems to me that they could consistently take the position that while the right to obtain a French education in national Canada is not a fundamental human right in the natural right sense, it is a communal right the violation of which undoes Canada's pact of union (and hence the legitimacy of any federal enactment that purports to affect Quebec). That is because the Canadian federal constitution appears explicitly to be a union of provinces (and not peoples) and the constitutional provisions at issue are critical components of the political bargain that undergirds that union.
I think we get to the core of Malthus' argument on rights when he talks about the government being required to provide education in languages other then French and English if a there is large number (but still a minority) who want it.
Malthus is the antiGrallon. While Grallon would cut away all minority rights while Malthus would impose obligations on government simply because the minority wanted it.
Quote from: Malthus on August 31, 2011, 03:15:53 PM
You are missing my point. I'm not asking to deliberately ship in Chinese-speakers. What I'm saying is that, if in some future world Chinese became the international language of commerce and science, and a significant portion of Chinese-speakers were Canadian citizens, and they thought it was to their advantage to be educated in Chinese, why not deal with that reality - rather than tearing our hair out and "oh noes, we must protect the primacy of English at all costs!!!!!oneone"
You have a point, but that is a political argument about priorities (expediency).
I agree that there are aspects of Quebec's language policy that seem counterproductive and self-defeating from the POV of seeking to create a modern, economically vibrant society, but that is just my opinion as an outsider. It is up to the people of the province to make those decisions based on their values, not mine. Societies make these kinds of trade-offs all the time, like with historical preservation laws, environmental reserves and the like.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 31, 2011, 03:31:22 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 31, 2011, 03:12:37 PM
So your argument depends on it costing significantly more resources to teach a child in one language over another. Seems a weak reed.
Moreover, my argument only requires such teaching if a sizable portion of people want it, so as to make it a viable proposition. Is there a significant demand for primary teaching in other languages? Or do parents there in fact prefer English as a primary language of instruction for practical reasons, making the debate somewhat moot?
No, my argument is that the allocation of resources is a political decision to be made by each of the Provinces. You try to get around your problem by suggesting that the people who speak other languages dont actually want to be taught in those other languages. But that avoids the real question - should the government be legally required to provide such services IF they did.
I see no compelling reason to require the government to do so.
I do - that people have a right to decide matters fundamental to their identity for themselves.
See now you are retreating to the language of rights. But on what basis are you grounding that "right".
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 31, 2011, 03:40:29 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 31, 2011, 02:25:14 PM
It addresses your original position, and that of others such as Minsky and Valmy, that payment out of government funds for minority language education is not any sort of "right", provincial governments ought to be able to direct educational spending as they see fit, and it is not possible to determine what constitutes a sufficiently large minority group. Of course it's a "right", not only are such "rights" commonplace, they are imbedded in our constitution.
but this confuses two different notions of "right"
A Canadian who is the member of a particular linguistic minority has the right to obtain payment out of government funds for their minority language education because the organic law so provides. That is just simple application of the rule of law.
You raised the separate question of whether outside of this positive legislative enactment, there is some fundamental human right to receive a free public education in the language of one's choosing (at least one some sort of unspecified population threshold is reached). I don't think there is, and I don't think a credible argument can be made in favor of that proposition.
No, I'm saying that linguisic rights exist and are recognized, and that the "rule of law" was drafted up as an expression of that right. However, it was drafted poorly, for reasons I have outlined. If I was confusing the notion of "right" as you say, I would have no basis for criticising the existing legislation.
QuoteYou then point out that such a position would not be acceptable to the "Quebec contigent" ("QC"). Of course that is not a problem for me, not being a member. But even here, I am not sure that applies, at least for all. I will let them state their own positions if they wish. But it seems to me that they could consistently take the position that while the right to obtain a French education in national Canada is not a fundamental human right in the natural right sense, it is a communal right the violation of which undoes Canada's pact of union (and hence the legitimacy of any federal enactment that purports to affect Quebec). That is because the Canadian federal constitution appears explicitly to be a union of provinces (and not peoples) and the constitutional provisions at issue are critical components of the political bargain that undergirds that union.
However, the basis of Canada's union is of peoples as well as provinces. That's why the "right" to French is extended throughout the country and not just in Quebec. So, your analysis is flawed from the start.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 31, 2011, 05:00:40 PM
See now you are retreating to the language of rights. But on what basis are you grounding that "right".
I've already answered that above: from legal sources from various traditions, from international definitions and instruments, and from philosophical notions of what constitutes a "right". In fact, I've asked others how *they* define "rights", and so far, without an answer - merely argument by assertion, as in Minsky's " I don't think there is, and I don't think a credible argument can be made in favor of that proposition."
I believe that parents who are citizens have the "right" to determine, in broad outlines, the course of the education of their children, and that if a sizable number of parents believe that a certain course in in their kids best interests, and they can demonstrate that this is objectively true, they should be allowed to so direct public authorities to provide - such as providing them with education in the language that they want.
You ask for sources? I've already demonstrated how this concept is built into the Canadian Constitution - albeit imperfectly. However, if yoiu wish to dig deeper, please examine the UN universal declaration of human rights:
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
QuoteArticle 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
Then, we can examine the documents considering linguistic rights - that is, if you are interested.
Quote from: Malthus on August 31, 2011, 08:34:19 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2011, 09:31:31 PM
Quote from: dps on August 30, 2011, 06:07:45 PM
If people don't want their children educated in French, why the fuck would they immigrate to Quebec? I mean, I'm sure no one (or almost no one) who doen'st speak French immigrates to Quebec simply so that their children will be educated in French, but if it's a deal-breaker, then don't move there! Shit, even moving within a country, there are tradeoffs that you have to make as to where is the best place for you to live. If you choose to immigrate to Quebec, the fact that your children will be educated in French unless you can afford private education is just a fact of life, same as there will be cold winters there. Again, if it's a deal-breaker, move somewhere else instead.
Likewise if you do not want your kid to be taught creationism, intelligent design, that Christianity is the foundation of American and human liberty, laissez faire Capitalism is the proven and infallible way to increase jobs and prosperity then do not send your kids to Texas public schools.
So, in your guy's opinion, no-one can complain about a silly policy like teaching creationism, because, you know, love it or leave it ... ?
I'm not sure whether you seriously believe that, or are joking. Honestly, I'm not.
No, I'm not suggesting that no on can complain about government policies that they don't agree with. I'm questioning why someone who strongly disagrees with the public policies enacted within a certain political entity would voluntarily immigrate to such an entity, and if for some reason that immigrate there anyway, why the public policies should be modified to address their objections--assuming that the policies in question do not violate fundamental human rights (and I agree with Minsky that an immigrant has no fundamental human right to have his children educated in his native language).
And yes, I'm serious about that.
Quote from: dps on August 31, 2011, 05:24:05 PM
No, I'm not suggesting that no on can complain about government policies that they don't agree with. I'm questioning why someone who strongly disagrees with the public policies enacted within a certain political entity would voluntarily immigrate to such an entity, and if for some reason that immigrate there anyway, why the public policies should be modified to address their objections--assuming that the policies in question do not violate fundamental human rights (and I agree with Minsky that an immigrant has no fundamental human right to have his children educated in his native language).
And yes, I'm serious about that.
Perhaps that person generally agrees with every other aspect of their chosen country, and only disagrees with that one aspect? Perhaps, on balance, the good outweighs the bad - but, like any other human on the planet, they wish to make good even better, by changing things they dislike?
Perhaps because, in a democracy, it makes no sense to provide lesser rights to citizens who are recent immigrants, or consider them somehow second class, stripping them of any legitimate right to complain about aspects of their country's policies that they disagree with on the basis of "well, if you felt that way, shouldn't have come"?
In effect, I'm advicating treating all citizens alike, whether they are immigrants or not. I fail to see what is so disagreeable about that.
Quote from: Malthus on August 31, 2011, 05:30:49 PM
Quote from: dps on August 31, 2011, 05:24:05 PM
No, I'm not suggesting that no on can complain about government policies that they don't agree with. I'm questioning why someone who strongly disagrees with the public policies enacted within a certain political entity would voluntarily immigrate to such an entity, and if for some reason that immigrate there anyway, why the public policies should be modified to address their objections--assuming that the policies in question do not violate fundamental human rights (and I agree with Minsky that an immigrant has no fundamental human right to have his children educated in his native language).
And yes, I'm serious about that.
Perhaps that person generally agrees with every other aspect of their chosen country, and only disagrees with that one aspect? Perhaps, on balance, the good outweighs the bad - but, like any other human on the planet, they wish to make good even better, by changing things they dislike?
Perhaps because, in a democracy, it makes no sense to provide lesser rights to citizens who are recent immigrants, or consider them somehow second class, stripping them of any legitimate right to complain about aspects of their country's policies that they disagree with on the basis of "well, if you felt that way, shouldn't have come"?
In effect, I'm advicating treating all citizens alike, whether they are immigrants or not. I fail to see what is so disagreeable about that.
Again, I didn't say that they couldn't complain.
And as for treating all citizens alike, well if all instruction in the public schools is in one particular language, then they
are all being treated alike. It seems to me that you are in effect arguing for special treatment for immigrants, not equality.
Malthus, you are interpreting the UN declaration giving parent a "prior right" to choose "the kind" of education given to their children as the ability to force governments to provide a certain type of education and particularly a requirement that the government fund education in language choosen by the parent. With respect your interpretation is not very compelling.
That is even more broad than your original contention that if there is a) a signficant minority and b) they want to be taught in their own language then that ought to be funding. By your interpretation of the UN declaration anyone can choose a language of instruction. And not only the language. Surely if "kind of education" means choice of language it also means choice of curriculum. Under your model the state would have to find individual learning programs for each student according to the wishes of each parent.
That interpretation is simply untenable.
A more reasonable interpretation is that parents may choose which school their kids will attend. Which is exactly what happens In Quebec.
I think you have run out of ground on this one.
Quote from: dps on August 31, 2011, 05:37:13 PM
Again, I didn't say that they couldn't complain.
So, the point of your stance is that they CAN complain, but if they do, you question why they had the temerity to immigrate there in the first place? :hmm:
QuoteAnd as for treating all citizens alike, well if all instruction in the public schools is in one particular language, then they are all being treated alike. It seems to me that you are in effect arguing for special treatment for immigrants, not equality.
I treat all alike: all beggars and all millionares caught sleeping under bridges or in parks are whipped.
[Surface "equality" can be anything but, where individual circumstances differ]
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 31, 2011, 05:45:25 PM
Malthus, you are interpreting the UN declaration giving parent a "prior right" to choose "the kind" of education given to their children as the ability to force governments to provide a certain type of education and particularly a requirement that the government fund education in language choosen by the parent. With respect your interpretation is not very compelling.
That is even more broad than your original contention that if there is a) a signficant minority and b) they want to be taught in their own language then that ought to be funding. By your interpretation of the UN declaration anyone can choose a language of instruction. And not only the language. Surely if "kind of education" means choice of language it also means choice of curriculum. Under your model the state would have to find individual learning programs for each student according to the wishes of each parent.
That interpretation is simply untenable.
A more reasonable interpretation is that parents may choose which school their kids will attend. Which is exactly what happens In Quebec.
I think you have run out of ground on this one.
Yeah, your interpretation which you made up is sure untenible. :hmm: As I suggested in my post, this has to be read together with other sources to tease out its meaning - namely, those considering the nature of linguistic rights. I linked to that stuff before, but clearly, there is no point, as you have made up your mind.
And parents may *not* "choose which school their kids will attend" in Quebec, if they are immigrants. Which is where this argument started in the first place.
Quote from: Malthus on August 31, 2011, 05:46:33 PM
Quote from: dps on August 31, 2011, 05:37:13 PM
Again, I didn't say that they couldn't complain.
So, the point of your stance is that they CAN complain, but if they do, you question why they had the temerity to immigrate there in the first place? :hmm:
Actually, in the particular case under discussion, what I would question is their judgement.
But in general, yeah, I think that, "Hey, nobody forced you to come here" isn't an unreasonable way to respond.
Quote from: Malthus on August 31, 2011, 05:50:44 PM
And parents may *not* "choose which school their kids will attend" in Quebec, if they are immigrants. Which is where this argument started in the first place.
Sure they can. They can choose to put them anywhere they wish. Your problem is that all option are not funded equally. But if the funding was such a problem why has there been no Constitutional challenge. Surely some enterprising class action lawyer out there has considered the probability of success of such a thing.
Quote from: Malthus on August 31, 2011, 05:03:40 PM
No, I'm saying that linguisic rights exist and are recognized,
That's seeking safety in vagueness. Sure there are "linguistic rights" - for example, the right of a private citizens to speak whatever language they wish with other private citizens in a private setting. Or the right to instruct others in languages. And of course those rights are recognized.
The question you have raised is whether those rights extend to the right to have publicly funded schools instructing in a given language, and I have not seen any convincing argument that such a right exists outside of positive law.
QuoteHowever, the basis of Canada's union is of peoples as well as provinces. That's why the "right" to French is extended throughout the country and not just in Quebec. So, your analysis is flawed from the start.
The 1867 act is clearly phrased as a union of provinces and that Act delegates educational powers to the provinces.
Quote from: Neil on August 31, 2011, 03:24:30 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 31, 2011, 11:07:08 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 31, 2011, 10:54:34 AM
Quote from: viper37 on August 31, 2011, 10:48:21 AM
You would have to ask those who forbid French education in the US and Canada.
Hey you can get a French education in the US if you want to pay for it.
After the civil war in Louisiana, French education was forbidden. Many states of New England also forbid French education after the influx of French Canadian immigrants.
The situation has been reversed since then, and there are of course private schools, but I think some public schools offer French immersion too.
Once again, over a hundred years ago. Can you at least snivel like a bitch about more contemporary issues?
the discussion was about French being forbidden in the past, hence the low number of french speakers in North America.
And I was not bitching, I was stating a fact.
I know you hate the historical truth, so I'll leave you to your usual ramblings of everyone being inferior to you, until such time as you are willing to discuss seriously without trolling.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 31, 2011, 03:45:26 PM
I agree that there are aspects of Quebec's language policy that seem counterproductive and self-defeating from the POV of seeking to create a modern, economically vibrant society, but that is just my opinion as an outsider.
when it comes to having counterproductive and self defeating policies to create a moderne, economically vibrant society, there are things much, much worst than that.
The language laws are merely there to enforce respect by a majority of outsiders who feel they shouldn't respect us. There's an historic reason, and reading Malthus and Neil posts just reinforce my views that they are still a necessary evil, as their creator saw them.
Quote from: viper37 on August 31, 2011, 07:36:27 PM
I know you hate the historical truth, so I'll leave you to your usual ramblings of everyone being inferior to you.
I don't hate the historical truth. My team won, after all. You're the one whose side is trying to refight 1763.
Quote from: Neil on August 31, 2011, 07:41:38 PM
I don't hate the historical truth. My team won, after all. You're the one whose side is trying to refight 1763.
Read Minsky's post, they will enlighten you.
Quote from: viper37 on August 31, 2011, 07:36:27 PM
the discussion was about French being forbidden in the past, hence the low number of french speakers in North America.
And I was not bitching, I was stating a fact.
I know you hate the historical truth, so I'll leave you to your usual ramblings of everyone being inferior to you, until such time as you are willing to discuss seriously without trolling.
There wouldn't be very many French Speakers in North America even if French were not periodically forbidden.
Quote from: viper37 on August 31, 2011, 07:46:43 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 31, 2011, 07:41:38 PM
I don't hate the historical truth. My team won, after all. You're the one whose side is trying to refight 1763.
Read Minsky's post, they will enlighten you.
Minsky is a lawyer, and an American one at that. He's not to be trusted.
Quote from: viper37 on August 31, 2011, 07:40:39 PM
The language laws are merely there to enforce respect by a majority of outsiders who feel they shouldn't respect us.
But it would appear that the language laws cause people to have less respect for you.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2011, 07:52:54 PM
There wouldn't be very many French Speakers in North America even if French were not periodically forbidden.
Yep, outside of a few enclaves in Louisiana and New England (which still limp on I understand). We never forbad German or Yiddish and they are rarely spoken outside of a few enclaves either. That is the way of the USA. Do not move here if you plan on speaking something other than English a few generations out.
Quote from: dps on August 31, 2011, 09:03:35 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 31, 2011, 07:40:39 PM
The language laws are merely there to enforce respect by a majority of outsiders who feel they shouldn't respect us.
But it would appear that the language laws cause people to have less respect for you.
The ones that are the most ridiculous are the ones least necessary IMO. The whole regulation of French on signs and stuff.
Quote from: Valmy on August 31, 2011, 09:21:03 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2011, 07:52:54 PM
There wouldn't be very many French Speakers in North America even if French were not periodically forbidden.
Yep, outside of a few enclaves in Louisiana and New England (which still limp on I understand). We never forbad German or Yiddish and they are rarely spoken outside of a few enclaves either. That is the way of the USA. Do not move here if you plan on speaking something other than English a few generations out.
Actually, the US
did forbid German education for a brief period.
Quote from: Malthus on August 31, 2011, 05:13:24 PM
I believe that parents who are citizens have the "right" to determine, in broad outlines, the course of the education of their children, and that if a sizable number of parents believe that a certain course in in their kids best interests, and they can demonstrate that this is objectively true, they should be allowed to so direct public authorities to provide - such as providing them with education in the language that they want.
If it is objectively true then they should try to get the political support to get them the service they want. Otherwise I find this principal as removing the power of the purse from democratic institutions and thus immoral.
Quote from: dps on August 31, 2011, 09:03:35 PM
But it would appear that the language laws cause people to have less respect for you.
Do you have less respect for the blacks since the 1960s and the civil rights movement?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2011, 09:32:29 PM
Actually, the US did forbid German education for a brief period.
During World War I. Not one of our noblest moments.
Quote from: viper37 on August 31, 2011, 11:01:53 PM
Quote from: dps on August 31, 2011, 09:03:35 PM
But it would appear that the language laws cause people to have less respect for you.
Do you have less respect for the blacks since the 1960s and the civil rights movement?
Please do not make that comparison.
Quote from: Valmy on August 31, 2011, 09:22:35 PM
The ones that are the most ridiculous are the ones least necessary IMO. The whole regulation of French on signs and stuff.
When a tourist visits Montreal today, he feels like it's a french city, not some New England/Ontarian town like all the others.
And it brings a competitive advantage others don't have, the "exotic" look one could not get elsewhere. Otherwise, tourist and business would go to Toronto, or stay in New York & Boston. But hey, the learn it pays to care about French, so, some of them have an office in Montreal, instead of elsewhere.
Quote from: viper37 on August 31, 2011, 11:01:53 PM
Quote from: dps on August 31, 2011, 09:03:35 PM
But it would appear that the language laws cause people to have less respect for you.
Do you have less respect for the blacks since the 1960s and the civil rights movement?
:XD: Oh, Jesus Christ. If you next compare the Francophones to Jews in the Holocaust your Victimization will be complete.
Quote from: Valmy on August 31, 2011, 11:05:00 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 31, 2011, 11:01:53 PM
Quote from: dps on August 31, 2011, 09:03:35 PM
But it would appear that the language laws cause people to have less respect for you.
Do you have less respect for the blacks since the 1960s and the civil rights movement?
Please do not make that comparison.
Why not? According to DPS, any kind of laws protecting a minority will cause them to receive less respect.
I'm not saying we were once slaves. Nor did we have to sit at the back of the bus. People were told to "speak white", tough, and clearly, the old English aristocracy (the ones who moved out of here in the late 70s, unable to adapt) had no respect for french speaking Quebecers and considered them inferior.
There is no victimization here Brad.
There is an explanation as to why there are language laws, as to why bringing back the "Royal" name to the army is offensive and stupid.
You may not like it, but I have spoken the truth, I have not lied, I have not exagerated any facts.
There has been discrimination against the French in the past, wich resulted in dwindling numbers.
And now, we have to protect our language & our culture.
At least, we don't talk about having walls and shooting people trying to cross the border.
Quote from: viper37 on August 31, 2011, 11:26:39 PM
There is an explanation as to why there are language laws, as to why bringing back the "Royal" name to the army is offensive and stupid.
Then why haven't you mentioned any (about the latter that is).
Also...
Has anyone told the Royal 22e Regiment "Van Doos" how offensive them being called "Royal" is? :huh:
http://www.vandoos.com/
Edit:
Also I can't resist - the name of the Army is unchanged - it is only the Navy and Air Force going back to their proper names.
Quote from: viper37 on August 31, 2011, 11:26:39 PM
There is no victimization here Brad.
There is an explanation as to why there are language laws, as to why bringing back the "Royal" name to the army is offensive and stupid.
You may not like it, but I have spoken the truth, I have not lied, I have not exagerated any facts.
There has been discrimination against the French in the past, wich resulted in dwindling numbers.
And now, we have to protect our language & our culture.
At least, we don't talk about having walls and shooting people trying to cross the border.
Of course you playing the Victim card. You list grievances that happened beyond living memory. What I take exception too, is the sense of superiority Quebecers have about this. You live in a State where your language is French and the majority language is English. Your ancestors suffered for it at the hands of the Anglos. Now (well sometime in the past), the Anglophones have agreed not to interfere with language in Quebec. They make an effort to provide bilingual services through out Canada. Does Quebec make an effort to reciprocate? No. Quebec has only one official language. Does Quebec offer First Nations Languages the same protection as the Anglos offer French? No. Those languages such as Cree are dwindling much quicker then French is. What Quebec does do is pass petty and absurd laws mandating French use, and to make sure everyone knows that French is superior by making all signs have French more predominant. This time the Anglos don't reciprocate. No, they tolerate it in the spirit of equality and diversity, something you don't seem to share. And if the Anglos fail to live up to your standards you bitch and moan. A man can't get 7-up in French on an air plane, the names of some military units are changed back, a painting is taken down. Quebec raves and cries out. You have people talking about how the Tories have abandoned them! Over petty bullshit.
Do you perhaps see how dps finds it difficult to respect people who engage in such antics? I certainly can.
You used the Black Americans as a comparison. It's not a good comparison, but I'll run with it. African Americans in this country who play the race card to often tend to engender resentment. Al Sharpton, is a perfect example. And African Americans who turn around and treat Hispanics or East Asians in the same way their fathers and grandfathers were treated by whites aren't that well liked either.
Quote from: Barrister on September 01, 2011, 12:07:42 AM
Edit:
Also I can't resist - the name of the Army is unchanged - it is only the Navy and Air Force going back to their proper names.
That's because the Army executed a King and thus will never be Royal.
Quote from: viper37 on August 31, 2011, 11:20:02 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 31, 2011, 11:05:00 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 31, 2011, 11:01:53 PM
Quote from: dps on August 31, 2011, 09:03:35 PM
But it would appear that the language laws cause people to have less respect for you.
Do you have less respect for the blacks since the 1960s and the civil rights movement?
Please do not make that comparison.
Why not? According to DPS, any kind of laws protecting a minority will cause them to receive less respect.
In Quebec, French speakers not a minority, they're the majoriy, and the laws we're talking about aren't doing anything to protect a minority. What those laws do, mostly, is rub the minority group's nose in the fact that they are a minority. I wouldn't call those laws oppressive, really, but the majority in Quebec is being petty, vindictive, and hypocritical, so don't expect to get much respect from many quarters.
Quote from: Viking on September 01, 2011, 04:58:33 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 01, 2011, 12:07:42 AM
Edit:
Also I can't resist - the name of the Army is unchanged - it is only the Navy and Air Force going back to their proper names.
That's because the Army executed a King and thus will never be Royal.
No, there's a long complicated history to it that has something to do with the fact that in the Army it is the various individual units that were raised (rather than one massed army), and thus the individual units have their separate royal connections (like the Royal 22e Regiment).
Quote from: Barrister on September 01, 2011, 07:31:19 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 01, 2011, 04:58:33 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 01, 2011, 12:07:42 AM
Edit:
Also I can't resist - the name of the Army is unchanged - it is only the Navy and Air Force going back to their proper names.
That's because the Army executed a King and thus will never be Royal.
No, there's a long complicated history to it that has something to do with the fact that in the Army it is the various individual units that were raised (rather than one massed army), and thus the individual units have their separate royal connections (like the Royal 22e Regiment).
Yes, it is a long and complicated history. But, to simplify it as much as possible; Regiments were denoted Royal (or something else) individually at the time of Restoration so that Roundhead and Parliamentary regiments would not have to follow Royal standards. Also as a part of Restoration pique was Charles II's naming of the english navy as the Royal Navy. The Army executed the King, the Navy brought him back. So, yes, this is all about Roundheads and Cavaliers.
Quote from: viper37 on August 31, 2011, 11:20:02 PM
Why not?
Because it makes you sound like a victim and a whiner. Not really helping your cause. Further while there are some similarities it does not fit very well.
As I said the comparison that fits best are the Euro ethnic groups that almost had their languages destroyed in the 19th century.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 31, 2011, 06:34:55 PM
That's seeking safety in vagueness. Sure there are "linguistic rights" - for example, the right of a private citizens to speak whatever language they wish with other private citizens in a private setting. Or the right to instruct others in languages. And of course those rights are recognized.
The question you have raised is whether those rights extend to the right to have publicly funded schools instructing in a given language, and I have not seen any convincing argument that such a right exists outside of positive law.
Not sure what would convince you. How about the UN
Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities?
http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/47/a47r135.htm
Quote2 1. Persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic
minorities (hereinafter referred to as persons belonging to minorities) have
the right to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own
religion, and to use their own language, in private and in public, freely and
without interference or any form of discrimination.
...
4. 2. States shall take measures to create favourable conditions to enable
persons belonging to minorities to express their characteristics and to
develop their culture, language, religion, traditions and customs, except
where specific practices are in violation of national law and contrary to
international standards.
3. States should take appropriate measures so that, wherever possible,
persons belonging to minorities may have adequate opportunities to learn their
mother tongue or to have instruction in their mother tongue.
You may disagree with this, but please don't pretend such rights don't exist.
Quote
The 1867 act is clearly phrased as a union of provinces and that Act delegates educational powers to the provinces.
... yet our
Constitution Act, as stated, extends rights to public funding of minority language education in either French or English, throughout Canada, regardless of provincial boundaries, if there exists a minority population that requires it. Obviously this is not a matter simply left "to the provinces", and the express reason for it is to recognize that Canada was historically a union of two peoples.
Quote from: viper37 on August 31, 2011, 07:40:39 PM
The language laws are merely there to enforce respect by a majority of outsiders who feel they shouldn't respect us.
You can't enforce respect. Trying to force respect just breeds resentment.
Malthus, JR
You may find this ECHR case of interest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Linguistic_Case_(No_2) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Linguistic_Case_(No_2))
Quote from: Malthus on September 01, 2011, 08:36:11 AM
You may disagree with this, but please don't pretend such rights don't exist.
I agree with all of that in principle, but those aren't the rights we are talking about.
Quote... yet our Constitution Act, as stated, extends rights to public funding of minority language education in either French or English, throughout Canada, regardless of provincial boundaries, if there exists a minority population that requires it. Obviously this is not a matter simply left "to the provinces", and the express reason for it is to recognize that Canada was historically a union of two peoples.
Sure but that doesn't address the point. The question you posed is whether it would be OK for federal Canada to impose English only public schools on all of Canada. That violates both acts, and through its violation of the '67 act, it attacks one of the bases of the federal union of provinces. I see nothing in the Constitution Act that would suggest otherwise.
QuotePersons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic
minorities (hereinafter referred to as persons belonging to minorities) have
the right to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own
religion, and to use their own language, in private and in public, freely and
without interference or any form of discrimination.
Yeah nowhere does that say anything about the language of public education.
Quote4. 2. States shall take measures to create favourable conditions to enable
persons belonging to minorities to express their characteristics and to
develop their culture, language, religion, traditions and customs, except
where specific practices are in violation of national law and contrary to
international standards.
Ok how the fuck do we create 'favourable' conditions? UN rights suck ass. Our Bill of Rights is sublte as a ton of bricks saying 'Congress will pass no law regarding such and such a matter' and we still cannot seem to understand what that means. 'States...create favourable conditions'? Does that mean simply not fuck with people being minorities or does that mean we need to level most of Brooklyn and rebuild it to resemble ancient Israel since that would be favourable to our Hasidic minority to express their characteristics? Most likely it means...whatever the signing state decides it means.
Quote3. States should take appropriate measures so that, wherever possible,
persons belonging to minorities may have adequate opportunities to learn their
mother tongue or to have instruction in their mother tongue.
What is an 'appropriate measure'? 'Wherever possible'? 'Adequate opportunities'? What a bunch of vague meaningless platitudes.
God no wonder people think the UN is a joke. How inspiring. Humans have the inalienable right to appropriate adequate stuff whenever possible. Be careful tyrants of the world! Freedom loving people everywhere will take appropriate measures to defend that adequate right wherever possible.
Quote from: Gups on September 01, 2011, 08:47:53 AM
Malthus, JR
You may find this ECHR case of interest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Linguistic_Case_(No_2) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Linguistic_Case_(No_2))
An interesting case, and decided on what, at least in Canada, would be considered a very bizzare definition of what constitutes "discrimination". From the judgment:
QuoteHowever, while recognising that this is a harsh measure, the Court cannot share the Commission's opinion that such a hardship is forbidden by a joint reading of the first sentence of Article 2 of the Protocol (P1-2) and Article 14 (art. 14) of the Convention. This opinion could be accepted only if the "hardship" were to amount to a distinction in treatment of an arbitrary and therefore discriminatory nature. The Court has, however, found that, whatever their severity, the legal or administrative provisions touched on by the first question are based on objective criteria.
Article 14 in question:
QuoteThe enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status."
What the court appears to be saying is that discriminating against a minority (however harshly) isn't really "discrimination" for the purposes of Art. 14, if it is "based on objective criteria" and thus not "arbitrary".
This seems ass-backwards to me. "Discriminatory" to my mind has nothing to do with necessarily how "arbitrary" the measure is - the court here is saying that a desire to assimilate others isn't "arbitrary" and thus discrimination to that effect isn't "discriminatory".
That being said, commenting on the legal process of another jurisdiction and all that. But the protection againstt discrimination here deoisn't seem very robust.
Quote from: Valmy on September 01, 2011, 09:17:43 AM
QuotePersons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic
minorities (hereinafter referred to as persons belonging to minorities) have
the right to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own
religion, and to use their own language, in private and in public, freely and
without interference or any form of discrimination.
Yeah nowhere does that say anything about the language of public education.
Quote4. 2. States shall take measures to create favourable conditions to enable
persons belonging to minorities to express their characteristics and to
develop their culture, language, religion, traditions and customs, except
where specific practices are in violation of national law and contrary to
international standards.
Ok how the fuck do we create 'favourable' conditions? UN rights suck ass. Our Bill of Rights is sublte as a ton of bricks saying 'Congress will pass no law regarding such and such a matter' and we still cannot seem to understand what that means. 'States...create favourable conditions'? Does that mean simply not fuck with people being minorities or does that mean we need to level most of Brooklyn and rebuild it to resemble ancient Israel since that would be favourable to our Hasidic minority to express their characteristics? Most likely it means...whatever the signing state decides it means.
Quote3. States should take appropriate measures so that, wherever possible,
persons belonging to minorities may have adequate opportunities to learn their
mother tongue or to have instruction in their mother tongue.
What is an 'appropriate measure'? 'Wherever possible'? 'Adequate opportunities'? What a bunch of vague meaningless platitudes.
God no wonder people think the UN is a joke. How inspiring. Humans have the inalienable right to appropriate adequate stuff whenever possible. Be careful tyrants of the world! Freedom loving people everywhere will take appropriate measures to defend that adequate right wherever possible.
I agree it's a horribly worded piece of drafting. But that's not the point. Whatever "appropriate measures" may mean, it would be tough to argue with a straight face that they mean forbidding immigrants to attend public English schools.
"Favorable conditions" and "appropriate measures" I would read as things like providing translation of key government documents, providing assistance relating to government services in multiple languages, court interpreters, etc. Plus for significant minorities providing language classes in the public schhols where administratively and economically feasible.
I don't read it as saying that the State is obliged to create muliple, parallel public school systems wherever significant lingusitic minorities are found, in which the principal language of instruction is the minority language. I don't read it that way because it doesn't say that and such a reading would be both unreasonable and contrary to the actual practice of most of the members of the General Assembly.
Quote from: Malthus on September 01, 2011, 09:23:12 AM
Whatever "appropriate measures" may mean, it would be tough to argue with a straight face that they mean forbidding immigrants to attend public English schools.
Um it says minorites not immigrants. Like an ethnic group living inside your borders and it concerns mother tongues of those minorities. The right of an immigrant to join an ethnic minority instead of the majority is never mentioned and certainly no requirement that a State pay to enable them to.
But even if it was it would be said in a vague way that would be meaningless anyway.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 01, 2011, 09:23:24 AM
"Favorable conditions" and "appropriate measures" I would read as things like providing translation of key government documents, providing assistance relating to government services in multiple languages, court interpreters, etc. Plus for significant minorities providing language classes in the public schhols where administratively and economically feasible.
I don't read it as saying that the State is obliged to create muliple, parallel public school systems wherever significant lingusitic minorities are found, in which the principal language of instruction is the minority language. I don't read it that way because it doesn't say that and such a reading would be both unreasonable and contrary to the actual practice of most of the members of the General Assembly.
"Appropriate measures ...to learn their mother tongue or to have instruction in their mother tongue".
Clearly, states have the obligation to pay public funds for minority language instruction, no? Which is what you guys are denying.
I do not claim that this provision requires states to carry out in full my own, particular program. I merely state that you are incorrect in stating that no such linguistic rights exist outside of the positive law (which you may remember was your contention), and that where (as in Quebec) such schools in fact exist, forbidding a small subset of students (children of recent immigrants) access to 'em hardly comports with such rights.
Unfortunately, real work calls and I must leave this debate for a time.
Quote from: Valmy on September 01, 2011, 09:26:56 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 01, 2011, 09:23:12 AM
Whatever "appropriate measures" may mean, it would be tough to argue with a straight face that they mean forbidding immigrants to attend public English schools.
Um it says minorites not immigrants. Like an ethnic group living inside your borders and it concerns mother tongues of those minorities. The right of an immigrant to join an ethnic minority instead of the majority is never mentioned and certainly no requirement that a State pay to enable them to.
But even if it was it would be said in a vague way that would be meaningless anyway.
Immigrants can't be minorities now? :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on September 01, 2011, 09:40:34 AM
Immigrants can't be minorities now? :lol:
Of course they can be. I said nowhere does it say immigrants have a right to be assimilated into another minority group and it certainly does not say the State needs to pay for it. It was about protecting ethnic cultures and their mother tongues from being persecuted. Not 'Serbia needs to provide schools at public expense to help their Albanian minority merge with their Hungarian minority to create a larger and more robust Hungarian minority.' Or: 'The US must build more schools at taxpayer expense because some of their Asian immigrants want to be taught in the tongue of the Navajo'.
I have zero interest in splitting my country up into linguistic and ethnic enclaves and while that will happen anyway to some extent (especially in the short term but that is a transition point and not a destination) I certainly would be dead set against funding it and I would regard ANY requirement to do so as tyranny if it were against the will of the people. Why should a people be forced to artificially create Balkanization in their own country? And if they were required to do so well...it is a pretty short step to blaming the minorities themselves for the requirement. Hello justifications for ethnic cleansing.
This is a horrible, horrible thread.
Quote from: The Brain on September 01, 2011, 11:06:53 AM
This is a horrible, horrible thread.
Are you kidding? I love this thread. Best thread evah.
Quote from: Valmy on September 01, 2011, 09:56:06 AM
I have zero interest in splitting my country up into linguistic and ethnic enclaves and while that will happen anyway to some extent (especially in the short term but that is a transition point and not a destination) I certainly would be dead set against funding it and I would regard ANY requirement to do so as tyranny if it were against the will of the people. Why should a people be forced to artificially create Balkanization in their own country? And if they were required to do so well...it is a pretty short step to blaming the minorities themselves for the requirement. Hello justifications for ethnic cleansing.
Texas is going to split up?
Quote from: Razgovory on September 01, 2011, 01:20:11 PM
Texas is going to split up?
Into 'linguistic and cultural enclaves'? Yeah it does and is and has to some extent.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 01, 2011, 11:38:28 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 01, 2011, 11:28:12 AM
Quote from: The Brain on September 01, 2011, 11:15:58 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 01, 2011, 11:08:34 AM
Quote from: The Brain on September 01, 2011, 11:06:53 AM
This is a horrible, horrible thread.
Are you kidding? I love this thread. Best thread evah.
Sigh.
Le Sigh.
La Sigh?
Le. :contract:
Un soupir, et non une soupir.
Quote from: Valmy on September 01, 2011, 01:24:33 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 01, 2011, 01:20:11 PM
Texas is going to split up?
Into 'linguistic and cultural enclaves'? Yeah it does and is and has to some extent.
Any of them going to vote Democrat?
Quote from: Zoupa on September 01, 2011, 02:51:31 PM
Le. :contract:
Un soupir, et non une soupir.
This is exactly why I need to keep my wife and/or sons close by whenever French is required.
Quote from: dps on September 01, 2011, 05:13:50 AM
In Quebec, French speakers not a minority, they're the majoriy, and the laws we're talking about aren't doing anything to protect a minority. What those laws do, mostly, is rub the minority group's nose in the fact that they are a minority. I wouldn't call those laws oppressive, really, but the majority in Quebec is being petty, vindictive, and hypocritical, so don't expect to get much respect from many quarters.
French speakers are a minority in the country, and in the continent.
And yes, the laws protect a minority, going from decline to stabilization.
If someone wants to do business in Quebec, it's in French. Otherwise, they shouldn't bother. We survived without Dell, until they learnt. We survived without Sun Life, until they learnt, and came back, apprecietive of the French distinctiveness. Laura Secord now belongs to a Quebec based company, after moving out of the province due to the language laws. Many of these companies who left after the PQ election and the language laws in the 70s came back crawling.
You say it's bad, I say: I don't care. People don't like French? they go to one of the 9 provinces where the english language is dominant.
As I said, it's about respect, and those who can't be bothered to offer it by themselves. Otherwise, these kind of laws would have no purpose.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 01, 2011, 08:45:00 AM
You can't enforce respect. Trying to force respect just breeds resentment.
Yes you can. You can expel un unrespectful guest from your house. You can punch in the face that kid mocking you in the school yard.
At a government level, you can have laws forbidding discrimination, or hate speech. None of these brings resentment from normal people. Bigots&racists are, of course frustrated. But do we care about these people? Not really.
Quote from: viper37 on September 01, 2011, 03:54:13 PM
At a government level, you can have laws forbidding discrimination, or hate speech. None of these brings resentment from normal people. Bigots&racists are, of course frustrated. But do we care about these people? Not really.
Depends how far it goes. Imo the interpretation of human rights legislation has reached some conclusions that the public at large consider silly which not only breeds resentment toward the law but undermines its credibility.
Quote from: Malthus on September 01, 2011, 09:39:40 AM
Clearly, states have the obligation to pay public funds for minority language instruction, no? Which is what you guys are denying.
Clearly, they do not. From the link Minsky posted:
QuoteFurther to this, the Court opined that the right to education implied the right to be educated in the national language, and did not include the provision that the parent's linguistic preferences be respected.
Quote from: viper37 on September 01, 2011, 03:46:04 PM
Quote from: dps on September 01, 2011, 05:13:50 AM
In Quebec, French speakers not a minority, they're the majoriy, and the laws we're talking about aren't doing anything to protect a minority. What those laws do, mostly, is rub the minority group's nose in the fact that they are a minority. I wouldn't call those laws oppressive, really, but the majority in Quebec is being petty, vindictive, and hypocritical, so don't expect to get much respect from many quarters.
French speakers are a minority in the country, and in the continent.
And yes, the laws protect a minority, going from decline to stabilization.
If someone wants to do business in Quebec, it's in French. Otherwise, they shouldn't bother. We survived without Dell, until they learnt. We survived without Sun Life, until they learnt, and came back, apprecietive of the French distinctiveness. Laura Secord now belongs to a Quebec based company, after moving out of the province due to the language laws. Many of these companies who left after the PQ election and the language laws in the 70s came back crawling.
You say it's bad, I say: I don't care. People don't like French? they go to one of the 9 provinces where the english language is dominant.
As I said, it's about respect, and those who can't be bothered to offer it by themselves. Otherwise, these kind of laws would have no purpose.
Wow...
Quote from: viper37 on September 01, 2011, 03:46:04 PM
Quote from: dps on September 01, 2011, 05:13:50 AM
In Quebec, French speakers not a minority, they're the majoriy, and the laws we're talking about aren't doing anything to protect a minority. What those laws do, mostly, is rub the minority group's nose in the fact that they are a minority. I wouldn't call those laws oppressive, really, but the majority in Quebec is being petty, vindictive, and hypocritical, so don't expect to get much respect from many quarters.
French speakers are a minority in the country, and in the continent.
And yes, the laws protect a minority, going from decline to stabilization.
If someone wants to do business in Quebec, it's in French. Otherwise, they shouldn't bother. We survived without Dell, until they learnt. We survived without Sun Life, until they learnt, and came back, apprecietive of the French distinctiveness. Laura Secord now belongs to a Quebec based company, after moving out of the province due to the language laws. Many of these companies who left after the PQ election and the language laws in the 70s came back crawling.
You say it's bad, I say: I don't care. People don't like French? they go to one of the 9 provinces where the english language is dominant.
As I said, it's about respect, and those who can't be bothered to offer it by themselves. Otherwise, these kind of laws would have no purpose.
Don't worry, I won't do any business in Quebec.
'Appreciative of the French distinctiveness'? :lol:
'Looking to make a buck and take advantage of cheap, civilized labour' would fit better, I think.
God save the Queen.
Hang the queen by the end of the week (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/hang-the-queen-by-end-of-week-tories-tell-embassies/article2156792/)
Quote from: viper37 on September 07, 2011, 03:15:04 PM
God save the Queen.
Hang the queen by the end of the week (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/hang-the-queen-by-end-of-week-tories-tell-embassies/article2156792/)
"Like virtually every other country in the world who display pictures of their head of state in their missions, we expect all Canadian missions abroad to display pictures of Canada's head of state"
Makes sense.
Quote from: viper37 on September 07, 2011, 03:15:04 PM
God save the Queen.
Hang the queen by the end of the week (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/hang-the-queen-by-end-of-week-tories-tell-embassies/article2156792/)
Oh the humanity!
Quote from: HVC on September 07, 2011, 03:18:55 PM
Quote from: viper37 on September 07, 2011, 03:15:04 PM
God save the Queen.
Hang the queen by the end of the week (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/hang-the-queen-by-end-of-week-tories-tell-embassies/article2156792/)
"Like virtually every other country in the world who display pictures of their head of state in their missions, we expect all Canadian missions abroad to display pictures of Canada's head of state"
Makes sense.
of for fuck sake. That's a pitiful excuse.
The head of state, for all intent and purpose is the Governor General. He/She's the one who would take over the government in case of a crisis, he's the one assuming transitional leadership and continuity of government (in theory) and she's the one who requires special 24/24 protection by the RCMP for all trips in and out of the country.
Fuck that Queen bullshit. It's some retarded fetish. And we'll have to pay the artists who made the portraits for displaying their work. More silly expenses, as if we did not have a deficit problem.
Quote from: dps on September 02, 2011, 05:08:59 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 01, 2011, 09:39:40 AM
Clearly, states have the obligation to pay public funds for minority language instruction, no? Which is what you guys are denying.
Clearly, they do not. From the link Minsky posted:
QuoteFurther to this, the Court opined that the right to education implied the right to be educated in the national language, and did not include the provision that the parent's linguistic preferences be respected.
Heh, sorry I missed this last time around ... please note the date of the case (cited by Gups, not Minsky) and the date of the
UN Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities. Hint: the case dates from the 1960s and the Declaration from the 1990s ... thus, you can't illuminate the meaning of the
Declaration by reference to the
case. :lol:
Quote from: viper37 on September 07, 2011, 03:34:42 PM
of for fuck sake. That's a pitiful excuse.
The head of state, for all intent and purpose is the Governor General. He/She's the one who would take over the government in case of a crisis, he's the one assuming transitional leadership and continuity of government (in theory) and she's the one who requires special 24/24 protection by the RCMP for all trips in and out of the country.
Fuck that Queen bullshit. It's some retarded fetish. And we'll have to pay the artists who made the portraits for displaying their work. More silly expenses, as if we did not have a deficit problem.
So what do you suppose the expenses are of putting up some pictures in some embassies?
Quote from: Razgovory on September 07, 2011, 04:14:58 PM
Quote from: viper37 on September 07, 2011, 03:34:42 PM
of for fuck sake. That's a pitiful excuse.
The head of state, for all intent and purpose is the Governor General. He/She's the one who would take over the government in case of a crisis, he's the one assuming transitional leadership and continuity of government (in theory) and she's the one who requires special 24/24 protection by the RCMP for all trips in and out of the country.
Fuck that Queen bullshit. It's some retarded fetish. And we'll have to pay the artists who made the portraits for displaying their work. More silly expenses, as if we did not have a deficit problem.
So what do you suppose the expenses are of putting up some pictures in some embassies?
Less than buying a piece of art to fill the same empty space of wall.
Quote from: viper37 on September 07, 2011, 03:34:42 PM
of for fuck sake. That's a pitiful excuse.
The head of state, for all intent and purpose is the Governor General. He/She's the one who would take over the government in case of a crisis, he's the one assuming transitional leadership and continuity of government (in theory) and she's the one who requires special 24/24 protection by the RCMP for all trips in and out of the country.
Fuck that Queen bullshit. It's some retarded fetish. And we'll have to pay the artists who made the portraits for displaying their work. More silly expenses, as if we did not have a deficit problem.
Where to begin...
First, it is the Queen who is our head of state. Period.
The GG would NOT take over the country in a time of crisis. I have no idea where you got that from.
There's no additional cost - the government has tons of portraits of the Queen - they cost pennies to make a new print.
Quote from: Barrister on September 07, 2011, 04:43:14 PM
The GG would NOT take over the country in a time of crisis. I have no idea where you got that from.
If there's a break in the government, the GG takes over, and he's the Commander in Chief too.
See this part of a nice Wikipedia piece:
However, the Royal Prerogative belongs to the Crown and not to any of the ministers,[5][118][130] and the royal and viceroyal figures may unilaterally use these powers in exceptional constitutional crisis situationsQuote
There's no additional cost - the government has tons of portraits of the Queen - they cost pennies to make a new print.
We have tons of that stuff? Where did we get all that? When she was 16 or something? How could we live without her portrait everywhere during all that time?
Viper, you are normally a very reasonable person, but you seem really weird on this stuff.
:lol: at viper for trying to use the deficit as an excuse to advance his silly Republicanism.
Quote from: viper37 on September 07, 2011, 03:34:42 PM
Quote from: HVC on September 07, 2011, 03:18:55 PM
Quote from: viper37 on September 07, 2011, 03:15:04 PM
God save the Queen.
Hang the queen by the end of the week (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/hang-the-queen-by-end-of-week-tories-tell-embassies/article2156792/)
"Like virtually every other country in the world who display pictures of their head of state in their missions, we expect all Canadian missions abroad to display pictures of Canada's head of state"
Makes sense.
of for fuck sake. That's a pitiful excuse.
It's not an excuse, it's a fact. Canada is a constitutional monarchy, and the British monarch is your head of state. You don't like that fact? Well, OK, but it's still a fact.
It's weird being on the same page as Dps.
Quote from: dps on September 07, 2011, 07:25:56 PM
Quote from: viper37 on September 07, 2011, 03:34:42 PM
Quote from: HVC on September 07, 2011, 03:18:55 PM
Quote from: viper37 on September 07, 2011, 03:15:04 PM
God save the Queen.
Hang the queen by the end of the week (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/hang-the-queen-by-end-of-week-tories-tell-embassies/article2156792/)
"Like virtually every other country in the world who display pictures of their head of state in their missions, we expect all Canadian missions abroad to display pictures of Canada's head of state"
Makes sense.
of for fuck sake. That's a pitiful excuse.
It's not an excuse, it's a fact. Canada is a constitutional monarchy, and the British monarch is your head of state. You don't like that fact? Well, OK, but it's still a fact.
The Canadian Monarch is the head of our state. she just happens to be the british monarch too :P
Quote from: Razgovory on September 07, 2011, 07:06:11 PM
Viper, you are normally a very reasonable person, but you seem really weird on this stuff.
I used to think he was more along the grey fox vein. still no where near grallon. He just really hates the queen, it seems lol
What's my vein?
Viper is way more to the right than I'll ever tolerate to be.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 07, 2011, 09:37:27 PM
What's my vein?
Viper is way more to the right than I'll ever tolerate to be.
I have no idea how vipers opinion appear on the left-right spectrum. I'm not a Canadian, so it comes off as really weird to me.
Quote from: viper37 on September 07, 2011, 06:28:16 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 07, 2011, 04:43:14 PM
The GG would NOT take over the country in a time of crisis. I have no idea where you got that from.
If there's a break in the government, the GG takes over, and he's the Commander in Chief too.
See this part of a nice Wikipedia piece:
However, the Royal Prerogative belongs to the Crown and not to any of the ministers,[5][118][130] and the royal and viceroyal figures may unilaterally use these powers in exceptional constitutional crisis situations
Quote
There's no additional cost - the government has tons of portraits of the Queen - they cost pennies to make a new print.
We have tons of that stuff? Where did we get all that? When she was 16 or something? How could we live without her portrait everywhere during all that time?
Dude - they're photographs. How much do you think it costs to make prints of a photo?
Somewhere along the line they get Her Majesty to pose in front of a Canadian flag, and that picture is used in all government buildings. There was one in the Federal building in Whitehorse, for example.
As for the rest - it's a purely theoretical power that has never once been exercised in all of Canadian history.
Quote from: HVC on September 07, 2011, 08:36:08 PM
The Canadian Monarch is the head of our state. she just happens to be the british monarch too :P
You mean her Majesty, Queen of Jamaica?
Quote from: Valmy on September 07, 2011, 10:10:47 PM
Dude - they're photographs. How much do you think it costs to make prints of a photo?
You have to pay royalties to the artist for every print. There's no small economies. If you keep thinking "oh, it's only a million$, oh it's only 3 guys to do the job of one in one place", you'll never achieve zero deficit without raising taxes.
QuoteSomewhere along the line they get Her Majesty to pose in front of a Canadian flag, and that picture is used in all government buildings. There was one in the Federal building in Whitehorse, for example.
It's still archaic. A foreign Queen to rule an independant country, and people seem to be so proud of this that they need to shove it down our throats everywhere in the government. C'mon, a foreign Queen is about as archaic as wearing a wig in court...
It's sad it was my great grand mother who had the american nationality. I could have used a second passport right about now. meh.
Quote
As for the rest - it's a purely theoretical power that has never once been exercised in all of Canadian history.
But it's still there. And it's not her majesty Elizabeth II who'd be ruling the country, but the governor general. It's still silly to have an unlected official weild any kind of theoritical power in the government, but at leas, the GG is nominated by the elected Prime Minister and his cabinet. Unlike the foreign monarch for whom we have no control over. If the British parliament got tired of their regent, they could find a way to force him/her to abdicate the throne. But we hold absolutely zero power, theoritical or otherwise. And we're supposed to be proud of this? I don't get this fetish. Like many others, actually, but that's beside the point.
Quote from: viper37 on September 07, 2011, 11:17:50 PM
You have to pay royalties to the artist for every print. There's no small economies. If you keep thinking "oh, it's only a million$, oh it's only 3 guys to do the job of one in one place", you'll never achieve zero deficit without raising taxes.
The government will have to pay royalties to itself? In the US at least a posed portrait for the President, Governor, Senator etc. are owned by the government and are public domain. I suspect that most embassies already have frames and possibly pictures sitting around. I doubt its going to cost much money. It's like complaining about the cost of putting up flags in front of embassies And the possibility of paying royalties to the flag owner. After your first sentence I have no idea what the hell you are going on about. So this post was a response only to the first sentence.
Quote from: viper37 on September 07, 2011, 11:17:50 PM
A foreign Queen to rule an independant country
Wow. What a whiner.
The Queen of Canada doesn't rule shit she is the national mascot. And being a foreigner is a benefit. The best monarchs are ones who are not physically present.
from the Wiki article on the monarchy debate in Canada
QuoteAlistair Horne observed in the late 1950s that, while Canada's cultural mix grew, the monarchy remained held in high regard: "At its lowest common denominator, to the average Canadian — whether of British, French or Ukrainian extraction — the Crown is the one thing that he has that the rich and mighty Americans have not got. It makes him feel a little superior." However, at the same time, he noted that the institution was coming more into question in Quebec and that it was sometimes perceived as having a "colonial taint", but theorises that this was because Canadians had an inferiority complex in relation to the British.[6]
Apart from nailing the role of the monarchy as part of the Canadian self image vis a vis America and Britain I want to know how, in the 1950's, Ukrainian rates a mention as the third Canadian nationality?
Quote from: Valmy on September 08, 2011, 07:45:03 AM
The best monarchs are ones who are not physically present.
I agree with that :) Wich is why we should ditch royalty.
Quote from: Viking on September 08, 2011, 08:31:14 AM
Apart from nailing the role of the monarchy as part of the Canadian self image vis a vis America and Britain I want to know how, in the 1950's, Ukrainian rates a mention as the third Canadian nationality?
Lots of Ukranians immigrated to the west of Canada, to grow wheat. I dunno if they were third in the '50s - I doubt it - but there were lots of them.
Somebody had to clean the toilets.
Quote from: Viking on September 08, 2011, 08:31:14 AM
Apart from nailing the role of the monarchy as part of the Canadian self image vis a vis America and Britain I want to know how, in the 1950's, Ukrainian rates a mention as the third Canadian nationality?
We are legion. :ph34r:
Quote from: Viking on September 08, 2011, 08:31:14 AM
from the Wiki article on the monarchy debate in Canada
QuoteAlistair Horne observed in the late 1950s that, while Canada's cultural mix grew, the monarchy remained held in high regard: "At its lowest common denominator, to the average Canadian — whether of British, French or Ukrainian extraction — the Crown is the one thing that he has that the rich and mighty Americans have not got. It makes him feel a little superior." However, at the same time, he noted that the institution was coming more into question in Quebec and that it was sometimes perceived as having a "colonial taint", but theorises that this was because Canadians had an inferiority complex in relation to the British.[6]
Apart from nailing the role of the monarchy as part of the Canadian self image vis a vis America and Britain I want to know how, in the 1950's, Ukrainian rates a mention as the third Canadian nationality?
If you had traveled through the West in the 50s you would have come across many communities which were created largely by Ukranian settlers and where Ukranian was still spoken by large numbers of people. Back then it was a significant minority language.
Now the Ukranian descendants are not as distinct, except for a compulsion to wear pleated pants, and certainly not as distinct as other more recent immigrant communities.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 08, 2011, 10:10:50 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 08, 2011, 08:31:14 AM
from the Wiki article on the monarchy debate in Canada
QuoteAlistair Horne observed in the late 1950s that, while Canada's cultural mix grew, the monarchy remained held in high regard: "At its lowest common denominator, to the average Canadian — whether of British, French or Ukrainian extraction — the Crown is the one thing that he has that the rich and mighty Americans have not got. It makes him feel a little superior." However, at the same time, he noted that the institution was coming more into question in Quebec and that it was sometimes perceived as having a "colonial taint", but theorises that this was because Canadians had an inferiority complex in relation to the British.[6]
Apart from nailing the role of the monarchy as part of the Canadian self image vis a vis America and Britain I want to know how, in the 1950's, Ukrainian rates a mention as the third Canadian nationality?
If you had traveled through the West in the 50s you would have come across many communities which were created largely by Ukranian settlers and where Ukranian was still spoken by large numbers of people. Back then it was a significant minority language.
Now the Ukranian descendants are not as distinct, except for a compulsion to wear pleated pants, and certainly not as distinct as other more recent immigrant communities.
So, basically they are Anglo-Canadians now?
Quote from: Viking on September 08, 2011, 10:24:13 AM
So, basically they are Anglo-Canadians now?
It's... well it's a melting pot in action.
Nobody but old babs and (comparitively few) recent immigrants speak Ukrainian now. But in the prairies Ukrainian culture has gone mainstream - pyrogies and cabbage rolls aren't ethnic food but are mainstream, pysanky are at everyone's easter celebration, Ukrainian Christmas is an unofficial second holiday for almost everyone.
Quote from: Viking on September 08, 2011, 10:24:13 AM
So, basically they are Anglo-Canadians now?
Linguistically probably yes as many would now speak English, culturally not so sure. Many will still identify their Ukranian heritage as important to them. But that has a lot less to do with the Ukraine then it does with the Ukranian settlers and the cultural impact they left in the West.
Quote from: Barrister on September 08, 2011, 10:34:35 AM
It's... well it's a melting pot in action.
Wait so your son's name is NOT Oleksiy Barristerboynko?
Quote from: Valmy on September 08, 2011, 10:43:01 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 08, 2011, 10:34:35 AM
It's... well it's a melting pot in action.
Wait so your son's name is NOT Oleksiy Barristerboynko?
Well his last name is Barristersky. :punk:
If only that was true.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 08, 2011, 10:49:55 AM
If only that was true.
I thought you said you liked my last name. :(
Quote from: Barrister on September 08, 2011, 10:48:45 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 08, 2011, 10:43:01 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 08, 2011, 10:34:35 AM
It's... well it's a melting pot in action.
Wait so your son's name is NOT Oleksiy Barristerboynko?
Well his last name is Barristersky. :punk:
A quick question about the integration of my people, are the Firstname Firstnamessons named after their fathers or are they named after the first Firstnamesson to name his kid after his grandfather? (Patronym (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patronymic)).
(funny story, on my birth certificate I'm named Firstname Firstnamesdaughter since that was the name my mother was admitted under, she naturally checked the Married box as well... )
Quote from: Viking on September 08, 2011, 03:16:20 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 08, 2011, 10:48:45 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 08, 2011, 10:43:01 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 08, 2011, 10:34:35 AM
It's... well it's a melting pot in action.
Wait so your son's name is NOT Oleksiy Barristerboynko?
Well his last name is Barristersky. :punk:
A quick question about the integration of my people, are the Firstname Firstnamessons named after their fathers or are they named after the first Firstnamesson to name his kid after his grandfather? (Patronym (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patronymic)).
(funny story, on my birth certificate I'm named Firstname Firstnamesdaughter since that was the name my mother was admitted under, she naturally checked the Married box as well... )
The icelanders I knew stuck with the same Firstnamesson name as when they came into the country. So if it was great grandpa joe who immigrated, and he was a Svenesson, they all are Svenessons.
And the Conservatvies keep on at it - this time restoring a lot of old Army traditions: :punk:
QuoteCanada restores historical features of the Canadian Army
NR 13.221 - July 8, 2013
HALIFAX – The Honourable Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence, announced today the Government of Canada's intent to restore Canadian Army rank insignia, names and badges to their traditional forms.
"Our Government is committed to honouring the traditions and history of the Canadian Army," said Minister MacKay. "The restoration of these historical features will encourage the esprit de corps of our soldiers and reinforce a rich military tradition that will continue to develop as they serve their country. Wherever I travel in Canada, these changes continue to be cherished in the hearts of our veterans."
The changes include the re-introduction of divisional nomenclature and patches for the current Land Force Areas; traditional rank insignia for officers; corps shoulder titles from the restoration of Royal titles to a number of Canadian Army corps in April 2013; and the Canadian Army's secondary badge. Further, the Minister of National Defence announced the intention to restore the historical Army rank names for non-commissioned members.
"The restoration of these features is a significant step in the restoration of the Canadian Army's traditions," said Lieutenant-General Peter Devlin, Commander of the Canadian Army. "Symbols and traditions establish links to soldiers' heritage, and are important. It is very significant that our non-commissioned members have the prospect of being able to bear the same ranks as their forbearers, and our officers will proudly wear the same insignia worn by Canadians who fought in the First and Second World Wars and Korea."
These restorations are the next step in the phased approach that began in August 2011, when the historical name of the Canadian Army was restored. Stemming from this initial restoration, and in line with historical lineage, the Canadian Army's secondary badge will be reinstated, and the Land Force Areas will be renamed under division names, with division patches introduced accordingly.
Additionally, following from the restoration of traditional titles to a number of Canadian Army corps, shoulder titles for members of these corps will be restored. The intent is also to restore historical rank names for non-commissioned members, the traditional and internationally recognized convention of army insignia of stars and crowns for officers, and gorget patches for colonels and general officers.
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=4882
Maybe we should do that as well. :menace:
Maybe we can finally honour Borden's promise to Churchill and get some dreadnoughts built.
Quote from: Neil on July 09, 2013, 03:03:57 PM
Maybe we can finally honour Borden's promise to Churchill and get some dreadnoughts built.
:lmfao:
Quote from: Zanza on July 09, 2013, 03:02:20 PM
Maybe we should do that as well. :menace:
I would get such a Panzer boner.....
Quote from: Barrister on July 09, 2013, 02:43:25 PM
And the Conservatvies keep on at it - this time restoring a lot of old Army traditions: :punk:
And they are ridding for a major fall at the next election. We've had quite enough of western provincialism for a few lifetimes.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on July 09, 2013, 06:59:14 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 09, 2013, 02:43:25 PM
And the Conservatvies keep on at it - this time restoring a lot of old Army traditions: :punk:
And they are ridding for a major fall at the next election. We've had quite enough of western provincialism for a few lifetimes.
G.
I am pretty sure you have said that in the last several election cycles.
dumb move. Going back to colonial roots instead of creating a new identity.
Quote from: viper37 on July 10, 2013, 12:33:47 PM
dumb move. Going back to colonial roots instead of creating a new identity.
Like what?
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 10, 2013, 12:35:40 PM
Quote from: viper37 on July 10, 2013, 12:33:47 PM
dumb move. Going back to colonial roots instead of creating a new identity.
Like what?
All military titles should be named after Hockey positions and/or Tim Horton's menu items.
Quote from: viper37 on July 10, 2013, 12:33:47 PM
dumb move. Going back to colonial roots instead of creating a new identity.
New identity? Didn't you get the memo? The Liberals have been doing 'nation building' for 40 years. With mixed results - the anglos have swallowed the multikulti shiite wholesale while we mostly reject it and bilinguism as a state policy has failed - what else is there? Once upon a time Canada was reknowned for its peacekeeping diplomacy - now we can't even win a seat on the UN Security council - thanks to the Conservatives' blind alignment on Israel et their general disinterest for anything that isn't about the economy. And all these colonial platitudes they keep trying to foist on everyone. Provincialism was the right word to use.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on July 10, 2013, 01:00:23 PM
Quote from: viper37 on July 10, 2013, 12:33:47 PM
dumb move. Going back to colonial roots instead of creating a new identity.
New identity? Didn't you get the memo? The Liberals have been doing 'nation building' for 40 years. With mixed results - the anglos have swallowed the multikulti shiite wholesale while we mostly reject it and bilinguism as a state policy has failed - what else is there? Once upon a time Canada was reknowned for its peacekeeping diplomacy - now we can't even win a seat on the UN Security council - thanks to the Conservatives' blind alignment on Israel et their general disinterest for anything that isn't about the economy. And all these colonial platitudes they keep trying to foist on everyone. Provincialism was the right word to use.
You can't have it both ways. You can't criticize the Liberals for nation building and "multikulti shiite", but then also criticize the Conservatives when they try and reverse some of those trends (at least with respect to the Canadian Forces).
Quote from: Valmy on July 10, 2013, 12:49:34 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 10, 2013, 12:35:40 PM
Quote from: viper37 on July 10, 2013, 12:33:47 PM
dumb move. Going back to colonial roots instead of creating a new identity.
Like what?
All military titles should be named after Hockey positions and/or Tim Horton's menu items.
:D
Quote from: Valmy on July 10, 2013, 12:49:34 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 10, 2013, 12:35:40 PM
Quote from: viper37 on July 10, 2013, 12:33:47 PM
dumb move. Going back to colonial roots instead of creating a new identity.
Like what?
All military titles should be named after Hockey positions and/or Tim Horton's menu items.
Aye-aye, Timbits. :D
Quote from: Valmy on July 10, 2013, 12:49:34 PM
and/or Tim Horton's menu items.
that crazyness has reached Quebec, even. Distinct society, no longer we are :(
I'm still trying to find what Canadians find so great about this coffee.
Quote from: viper37 on July 10, 2013, 01:47:10 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 10, 2013, 12:49:34 PM
and/or Tim Horton's menu items.
that crazyness has reached Quebec, even. Distinct society, no longer we are :(
I'm still trying to find what Canadians find so great about this coffee.
There's little to recommend about Tim Horton's coffee.
A law originating in 1731 from the British Parliament precedes all other Canadian laws, including the 1982 Constitution. Weird, for an independant country.
I can't imagine the outcry in Canada if a Quebec court was to refuse documents submitted in english and ask a mandatory french translation. No doubt, accusation of racism and intolerance would surface...
Quote from: viper37 on July 30, 2013, 09:57:00 AM
A law originating in 1731 from the British Parliament precedes all other Canadian laws, including the 1982 Constitution. Weird, for an independant country.
Heh. Euros still follow Roman Laws, the US still follows Common Law, and Louisiana still follows the Napoleonic Civil Code.
Granted Louisiana is not an independent country so I guess that holds up.
The main problem with Common Law is that it is just that.
Quote from: Valmy on July 30, 2013, 10:07:06 AM
Heh. Euros still follow Roman Laws, the US still follows Common Law, and Louisiana still follows the Napoleonic Civil Code.
Granted Louisiana is not an independent country so I guess that holds up.
This is not true, other than the independent country bit. Louisiana:
(1) Based its code on the same Spanish sources the Napoleonic code was based on (the Napoleonic code was not enacted until after the Louisiana Purchase);
(2) As a US possession, started with a criminal code based on the common law rather than the civil law, and codified as the Crimes Act of 1805;
(3) Has enacted almost all of the Uniform Commercial Code;
(4) And has been heavily influenced by the law of the rest of the United States to the point that many common law concepts are just given a funny name in Louisiana.
Quote from: Valmy on July 30, 2013, 10:07:06 AM
Quote from: viper37 on July 30, 2013, 09:57:00 AM
A law originating in 1731 from the British Parliament precedes all other Canadian laws, including the 1982 Constitution. Weird, for an independant country.
Heh. Euros still follow Roman Laws, the US still follows Common Law, and Louisiana still follows the Napoleonic Civil Code.
Granted Louisiana is not an independent country so I guess that holds up.
Text (http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/supreme-court-rules-against-tabling-french-only-documents-in-b-c-1.1386111)
Louisiana follows its own civil code, wich happens to be the one made by Napoleon. We had the same in Quebec for long, until we modernized it. And I'm pretty sure the Louisiana civil code has been modified over the years, and no one can use a law voted in France in 1812 to justfify something. And if any Louisiana law were to forbid something like, say, free speech, I'm pretty sure the Federal Constitution would supercede it, no?
Or are you telling me that Louisiana would be free to... say, ban all handguns from New Orleans?
What did I say about Canada's reaction?
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/diane-bederman/quebec-canada_b_3646036.html
Quote
The secular fundamentalism as practiced in the province of Quebec is destructive to the bi-lingual, multi-ethnic fabric of Canada. Quebec's narrative of uni-lingualism, uni-culturalism and uni-ethnic absolutism is a throwback to tribalism that flourishes in parts of Africa and the Middle East.
I'm guessing British-Columbia is a threat to canadian multi-culturalism and bi-lingual status? Or is it that bilinguism in Canada is English only?
Quote from: viper37 on July 30, 2013, 10:23:25 AM
I'm guessing British-Columbia is a threat to canadian multi-culturalism and bi-lingual status? Or is it that bilinguism in Canada is English only?
Its too early in the morning for you to be drunk
Quote from: viper37 on July 30, 2013, 10:23:25 AM
What did I say about Canada's reaction?
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/diane-bederman/quebec-canada_b_3646036.html
I don't think the polemical screed you linked to represents Canada's reaction.
QuoteThe secular fundamentalism as practiced in the province of Quebec is destructive to the bi-lingual, multi-ethnic fabric of Canada. Quebec's narrative of uni-lingualism, uni-culturalism and uni-ethnic absolutism is a throwback to tribalism that flourishes in parts of Africa and the Middle East.
Ridiculous.
QuoteI'm guessing British-Columbia is a threat to canadian multi-culturalism and bi-lingual status? Or is it that bilinguism in Canada is English only?
Uh... what?
Quote from: Jacob on July 30, 2013, 10:49:51 AM
QuoteThe secular fundamentalism as practiced in the province of Quebec is destructive to the bi-lingual, multi-ethnic fabric of Canada. Quebec's narrative of uni-lingualism, uni-culturalism and uni-ethnic absolutism is a throwback to tribalism that flourishes in parts of Africa and the Middle East.
Ridiculous.
Agreed, it's more similar to the tribalism that flourishes in eastern Europe.
Quote from: ulmont on July 30, 2013, 10:18:35 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 30, 2013, 10:07:06 AM
Heh. Euros still follow Roman Laws, the US still follows Common Law, and Louisiana still follows the Napoleonic Civil Code.
Granted Louisiana is not an independent country so I guess that holds up.
This is not true, other than the independent country bit. Louisiana:
(1) Based its code on the same Spanish sources the Napoleonic code was based on (the Napoleonic code was not enacted until after the Louisiana Purchase);
(2) As a US possession, started with a criminal code based on the common law rather than the civil law, and codified as the Crimes Act of 1805;
(3) Has enacted almost all of the Uniform Commercial Code;
(4) And has been heavily influenced by the law of the rest of the United States to the point that many common law concepts are just given a funny name in Louisiana.
Thanks for destroying something I loped about Louisiana :(
Yes I know the Civil Code was not enacted until after the Louisiana Purchase which is part of the reason why I thought it was so awesome they adopted it anyway :P
Quote from: viper37 on July 30, 2013, 10:21:11 AM
Louisiana follows its own civil code, wich happens to be the one made by Napoleon. We had the same in Quebec for long, until we modernized it. And I'm pretty sure the Louisiana civil code has been modified over the years, and no one can use a law voted in France in 1812 to justfify something. And if any Louisiana law were to forbid something like, say, free speech, I'm pretty sure the Federal Constitution would supercede it, no?
Or are you telling me that Louisiana would be free to... say, ban all handguns from New Orleans?
No, due to the fact that Louisiana is not an independent country. But are you saying Canada is not free to change or cancel any laws from 1731 they might not like?
Quote from: Jacob on July 30, 2013, 10:49:51 AM
Quote from: viper37 on July 30, 2013, 10:23:25 AM
What did I say about Canada's reaction?
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/diane-bederman/quebec-canada_b_3646036.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/diane-bederman/quebec-canada_b_3646036.html)
I don't think the polemical screed you linked to represents Canada's reaction.
QuoteThe secular fundamentalism as practiced in the province of Quebec is destructive to the bi-lingual, multi-ethnic fabric of Canada. Quebec's narrative of uni-lingualism, uni-culturalism and uni-ethnic absolutism is a throwback to tribalism that flourishes in parts of Africa and the Middle East.
Ridiculous.
QuoteI'm guessing British-Columbia is a threat to canadian multi-culturalism and bi-lingual status? Or is it that bilinguism in Canada is English only?
Uh... what?
Seems to describe grallon fairly well.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 30, 2013, 11:02:59 AMSeems to describe grallon fairly well.
Definitely, but grallon doesn't represent Quebec.
Quote from: viper37 on July 30, 2013, 09:57:00 AM
A law originating in 1731 from the British Parliament precedes all other Canadian laws, including the 1982 Constitution. Weird, for an independant country.
I can't imagine the outcry in Canada if a Quebec court was to refuse documents submitted in english and ask a mandatory french translation. No doubt, accusation of racism and intolerance would surface...
:huh:
You are deeply confused somewhere along the line.
First of all - when new colonies were started in North America it made sense not to start the laws from scratch. So what happened is each colony incorporated all existing British laws as of the date of formation. So, because I know Western history better than that of Quebec, when Alberta was formed we incorporated all existing British laws that were in effect in 1905.
But that doesn't mean that those British laws superceded our own laws. Alberta, Quebec, or wherever has the full right to then amend or abolish any of those old British laws within their own territory. And they certainly don't supercede the Constitution.
There is one exception, which is what you might be talking about. The Constitution itself says that 'all existing aboriginal rights' are preserved. So if there is an aboriginal right that comes from an old British law then that would continue in effect. But that's not because the old British laws precede our own, but rather because such rights are explicitly preserved in the constitution.
And those rights can be changed without reference to Great Britain - but it would require a constitutional amendment.
Quote from: viper37 on July 30, 2013, 10:23:25 AM
What did I say about Canada's reaction?
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/diane-bederman/quebec-canada_b_3646036.html
Quote
The secular fundamentalism as practiced in the province of Quebec is destructive to the bi-lingual, multi-ethnic fabric of Canada. Quebec's narrative of uni-lingualism, uni-culturalism and uni-ethnic absolutism is a throwback to tribalism that flourishes in parts of Africa and the Middle East.
You really should stop paying attention to whatever is written or said in the ROC about us - it's mostly the usual kneejerking reaction against anyone who doesn't believe in their state religion *shrug*.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on July 30, 2013, 02:12:25 PM
You really should stop paying attention to whatever is written or said in the ROC about us - it's mostly the usual kneejerking reaction against anyone who doesn't believe in their state religion *shrug*.
I don't know if that's true in general, but that particular piece Viper linked was pretty terrible.
Quote from: Jacob on July 30, 2013, 10:49:51 AM
Quote from: viper37 on July 30, 2013, 10:23:25 AM
What did I say about Canada's reaction?
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/diane-bederman/quebec-canada_b_3646036.html
I don't think the polemical screed you linked to represents Canada's reaction.
QuoteThe secular fundamentalism as practiced in the province of Quebec is destructive to the bi-lingual, multi-ethnic fabric of Canada. Quebec's narrative of uni-lingualism, uni-culturalism and uni-ethnic absolutism is a throwback to tribalism that flourishes in parts of Africa and the Middle East.
Ridiculous.
QuoteI'm guessing British-Columbia is a threat to canadian multi-culturalism and bi-lingual status? Or is it that bilinguism in Canada is English only?
Uh... what?
The author of the piece above, something we see, oh, I'd say once a month at least in major newspapers, more often in blog comments is saying that Quebec unilingualism culture is a threat to Canada. I'm guessing British Columbia dragging its feet and insisting all documentation in court to be presented in english must also be a threat. Or otherwise "bilinguism" is only for Quebec, not the rest of Canada.
Quote from: Valmy on July 30, 2013, 10:57:30 AM
No, due to the fact that Louisiana is not an independent country. But are you saying Canada is not free to change or cancel any laws from 1731 they might not like?
British Columbia has not, and shows no intention of doing it. Canada already has a law on official bilinguism, but it seems it's only used to force Quebec to agree to anglophones demands. French-Canadian asking for services in their own language, or even worst, control of their education budget are called whiners.
Quote from: Barrister on July 30, 2013, 01:15:46 PM
Quote from: viper37 on July 30, 2013, 09:57:00 AM
A law originating in 1731 from the British Parliament precedes all other Canadian laws, including the 1982 Constitution. Weird, for an independant country.
I can't imagine the outcry in Canada if a Quebec court was to refuse documents submitted in english and ask a mandatory french translation. No doubt, accusation of racism and intolerance would surface...
:huh:
You are deeply confused somewhere along the line.
First of all - when new colonies were started in North America it made sense not to start the laws from scratch. So what happened is each colony incorporated all existing British laws as of the date of formation. So, because I know Western history better than that of Quebec, when Alberta was formed we incorporated all existing British laws that were in effect in 1905.
But that doesn't mean that those British laws superceded our own laws. Alberta, Quebec, or wherever has the full right to then amend or abolish any of those old British laws within their own territory. And they certainly don't supercede the Constitution.
There is one exception, which is what you might be talking about. The Constitution itself says that 'all existing aboriginal rights' are preserved. So if there is an aboriginal right that comes from an old British law then that would continue in effect. But that's not because the old British laws precede our own, but rather because such rights are explicitly preserved in the constitution.
And those rights can be changed without reference to Great Britain - but it would require a constitutional amendment.
Well, why is it that British Columbia can invoke a 1731 law from the United Kingdom to justify it's refusal in listening to complaints ofr franco-British Columbians about their education? They're hoping the costs of the translation procedures will prove to much for the association so it won't have means to successfully oppose the governement. Because of a British law.
You are right that the parliament of British Columbia could change the law if it wanted to. But we have a case here where the provincial government is accused of denying rights to the franco minority, and it is invoking that stupid law as part of its defense.
Given the court's ruling, I'd be surprised if this were to go further.
What we have is the classic case of a province denying rights to its francophone minority and getting away with it. Somedays, I understand the blue necks of my province wanting a "french-only" province, I swear. <_<
Quote from: viper37 on July 31, 2013, 12:02:07 PMBritish Columbia has not, and shows no intention of doing it. Canada already has a law on official bilinguism, but it seems it's only used to force Quebec to agree to anglophones demands. French-Canadian asking for services in their own language, or even worst, control of their education budget are called whiners.
I see.
I definitely concede that there's a certain amount of hypocrisy going on from certain anglophones when it comes to the various language debates. No doubt about it. And I'm sure there are demagogues who spout offensive bullshit as well, which must be annoying if you pay attention to it.
Whether the particular examples you bring up are terrible or not, I don't know to be honest. I'm perfectly fine with Quebec being primarily French and taking steps to promote that, but it does seem to into petty territory once in a while. I'm also content with the bilingual nature of all Federal services and so on.
I'm not certain that comparing language policies in Quebec to those in British Columbia, though, except as a matter of rhetoric. It makes much more sense, to me at least, to deal with the
In 2001, 2% of BC's population had French as their mother tongue (placing it after English (60%), "other Chinese" (5%), Cantonese (5%), Punjabi (5%) and German (3%)).
Does it really make sense to apply the same French or English language policies in BC as it does in Quebec (where 13% are Anglophones), New Brunswick (64% Anglo, 32% Franco), or Ontario (4% Francophone)? Personally, I think it makes sense to set language policy based on provincial realities rather than try to get a uniform mirror across all provinces.
Also personally, I wouldn't call Francophone British Columbians "whiners" for pushing for the kind of services and infrastructure they need; in part because I'm not aware of any great controversies.
Checking out the French School Board (CSF) site - http://www.csf.bc.ca/english/history_csf.php - is it related to the CSF the legal action against the Province to make it "recognized its constitutional rights and to give the appropriate means to meet its obligations"? If it is, then I certainly won't call BC Francophones "whiners" for launching this action, and in fact I hope they succeed.
Quote from: viper37 on July 31, 2013, 12:07:24 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 30, 2013, 01:15:46 PM
Quote from: viper37 on July 30, 2013, 09:57:00 AM
A law originating in 1731 from the British Parliament precedes all other Canadian laws, including the 1982 Constitution. Weird, for an independant country.
I can't imagine the outcry in Canada if a Quebec court was to refuse documents submitted in english and ask a mandatory french translation. No doubt, accusation of racism and intolerance would surface...
:huh:
You are deeply confused somewhere along the line.
First of all - when new colonies were started in North America it made sense not to start the laws from scratch. So what happened is each colony incorporated all existing British laws as of the date of formation. So, because I know Western history better than that of Quebec, when Alberta was formed we incorporated all existing British laws that were in effect in 1905.
But that doesn't mean that those British laws superceded our own laws. Alberta, Quebec, or wherever has the full right to then amend or abolish any of those old British laws within their own territory. And they certainly don't supercede the Constitution.
There is one exception, which is what you might be talking about. The Constitution itself says that 'all existing aboriginal rights' are preserved. So if there is an aboriginal right that comes from an old British law then that would continue in effect. But that's not because the old British laws precede our own, but rather because such rights are explicitly preserved in the constitution.
And those rights can be changed without reference to Great Britain - but it would require a constitutional amendment.
Well, why is it that British Columbia can invoke a 1731 law from the United Kingdom to justify it's refusal in listening to complaints ofr franco-British Columbians about their education? They're hoping the costs of the translation procedures will prove to much for the association so it won't have means to successfully oppose the governement. Because of a British law.
You are right that the parliament of British Columbia could change the law if it wanted to. But we have a case here where the provincial government is accused of denying rights to the franco minority, and it is invoking that stupid law as part of its defense.
Given the court's ruling, I'd be surprised if this were to go further.
What we have is the classic case of a province denying rights to its francophone minority and getting away with it. Somedays, I understand the blue necks of my province wanting a "french-only" province, I swear. <_<
So you are conceding that a British law from 1731 does not, in fact, supercede all Canadian laws including the Constitution. :)
Quote from: viper37 on July 31, 2013, 12:07:24 PM
Well, why is it that British Columbia can invoke a 1731 law from the United Kingdom to justify it's refusal in listening to complaints ofr franco-British Columbians about their education? They're hoping the costs of the translation procedures will prove to much for the association so it won't have means to successfully oppose the governement. Because of a British law.
You are right that the parliament of British Columbia could change the law if it wanted to. But we have a case here where the provincial government is accused of denying rights to the franco minority, and it is invoking that stupid law as part of its defense.
Given the court's ruling, I'd be surprised if this were to go further.
What we have is the classic case of a province denying rights to its francophone minority and getting away with it. Somedays, I understand the blue necks of my province wanting a "french-only" province, I swear. <_<
So if I understand correctly:
- The CSF are suing the the Provincial gov't for greater autonomy and better funding, based on an argument about constitutional rights.
- BC courts require a bunch of relevant French documents to be provided in English by the CSF.
- The CSF is likely unable to bear the translation costs and is thus likely to abandon the suit.
Is that correct?
If so, I agree with you, your blue-neck friends, and the Quebec press that that's pretty shitty.
I'm not sure what the solution is - if there's a way to raise the funds for the translation somewhere; or if a political solution can be found (probably unlikely, unless the BC Francophone community manages to organize and ally politically) - but I'm not sure how much bearing it should have on Anglo-French policies in Quebec or Ontario or other provinces or vice-versa?
I guess you'd like anti-French Anglophones back East to acknowledge it's a shitty thing that's happening with this?
Similarly, I don't agree with the lady in the blog you linked who called Quebec all kinds of terrible things. I do think that some of Quebec's language policies go a bit over board at times, but her characterization and conclusions are extremely polemical and rather offensive.
If they want to speak French, they should move somewhere French, like France.
Viper37, it seems your argument is with Neil.
Personally, I'd advise against it as it is unlikely to be particularly satisfying.
Quote from: Barrister on July 31, 2013, 12:51:33 PM
So you are conceding that a British law from 1731 does not, in fact, supercede all Canadian laws including the Constitution. :)
Well, actually it does. In a way. You'd need the British Columbia government to ratify a new law, wich they won't do, so the Supreme Court refers to the old law, and by some weird interpretation of the 1982 Constitution, they say it does not violate the rights of the minority.
I'd just like to see a case like this with Anglo-Québécois, for the fun of it :)
Quote from: Jacob on July 31, 2013, 12:59:10 PM
So if I understand correctly:
- The CSF are suing the the Provincial gov't for greater autonomy and better funding, based on an argument about constitutional rights.
- BC courts require a bunch of relevant French documents to be provided in English by the CSF.
- The CSF is likely unable to bear the translation costs and is thus likely to abandon the suit.
Is that correct?
Almost :)
The Government of British Columbia made the argument that all documents should be submitted to the court in English, wich the Supreme court upheld.
Quote
I'm not sure what the solution is - if there's a way to raise the funds for the translation somewhere; or if a political solution can be found (probably unlikely, unless the BC Francophone community manages to organize and ally politically) - but I'm not sure how much bearing it should have on Anglo-French policies in Quebec or Ontario or other provinces or vice-versa?
The judgments says that no provinces have to provide bilingual trials, except where the law explicitely states so: New Brunswick and Quebec. Not sure about Ontario, I'd have to search.
What it means in the long run, is that any province (except the aforementionned) could likely deny a trial in french, or a translator service to a french-canadian.
Quote
I guess you'd like anti-French Anglophones back East to acknowledge it's a shitty thing that's happening with this?
Of course I'd like to. I won't hold my breath, 'cause it won't happen.
Quote from: Jacob on July 31, 2013, 01:08:44 PM
Viper37, it seems your argument is with Neil.
Personally, I'd advise against it as it is unlikely to be particularly satisfying.
Well, I think Neil's position is the majority one in Canada. But you don't build a country out of love for one another, so that's not a very good reason to seperate either.
Quote from: viper37 on August 01, 2013, 02:35:34 AM
The judgments says that no provinces have to provide bilingual trials, except where the law explicitely states so: New Brunswick and Quebec. Not sure about Ontario, I'd have to search.
What it means in the long run, is that any province (except the aforementionned) could likely deny a trial in french, or a translator service to a french-canadian.
You do understand the difference between civil and criminal proceedings, don't you?
The judgement (which, despite not being Canadian, I became curious enough about to actually read) makes itself crystal clear that it only applies to civil cases, that the law in question had been overridden by subsequent laws (Federal laws, I presume) for criminal cases. Saying that, in the long run, any province could deny any person the right to a trial in French is simply hyperbole.
It also states that even if the 1731 Act was found to be inapplicable Rule 22.3 of British Columbia's civil rules would have applied with exactly the same effect. So it's not just an "old British Law" involved here but also BC's modern rules.
And finally, even the minority opinion, the dissent, isn't particular favourable to the CSF's case; assuming I am reading it correctly the minority would simply have referred the case back to BC's Supreme Court for reconsideration with revised Guidelines. This could simply have resulted in BC's court reaffirming it's original decision.
Given the costs of translation services and the small proportion of natural French speakers in British Columbia compared to even other minorities (2% compared to 10% for the Chinese languages, for example) I, as a total outsider, see nothing wrong with the judgement.
Not that my perspective matters at all, of course. Only the perspective of people in Canada matters.
Quote from: Jacob on July 31, 2013, 01:04:17 PM
Similarly, I don't agree with the lady in the blog you linked who called Quebec all kinds of terrible things. I do think that some of Quebec's language policies go a bit over board at times, but her characterization and conclusions are extremely polemical and rather offensive.
And yet she expressed a position that's quite prevalent in certain circles. Go no further than our dear Malthus here - who I note is conspicuously absent from this current exchange. He has voiced similar opinions in the past - in fact he used the same rethoric about tribalism, racism, etc - albeit without the vitriol that cunt put in her own piece. The position is part of the Canadian mythos - and like with any mythos - it requires a moral repellent to validate itself. It so happen that Quebec serves that purpose for many Canadians. I guess it's ok since Canada is used pretty much in the same way by many Quebecers.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on August 01, 2013, 07:09:06 AM
Quote from: Jacob on July 31, 2013, 01:04:17 PM
Similarly, I don't agree with the lady in the blog you linked who called Quebec all kinds of terrible things. I do think that some of Quebec's language policies go a bit over board at times, but her characterization and conclusions are extremely polemical and rather offensive.
And yet she expressed a position that's quite prevalent in certain circles. Go no further than our dear Malthus here - who I note is conspicuously absent from this current exchange. He has voiced similar opinions in the past - in fact he used the same rethoric about tribalism, racism, etc - albeit without the vitriol that cunt put in her own piece. The position is part of the Canadian mythos - and like with any mythos - it requires a moral repellent to validate itself. It so happen that Quebec serves that purpose for many Canadians. I guess it's ok since Canada is used pretty much in the same way by many Quebecers.
G.
This is, of course, pure bullshit. If not, it ought to be easy to find a post in which I go on about the alleged "racism" of Quebec.
I have not commented on this discussion because I am not all that interested in some obscure BC decision on the costs of translation.
Grallon, you are looking into a mirror and seeing your own reflection, not seeing the "other" as it truly is - both in respect of English Canada as a whole, and of me in particular.
This appears to be characteristic of certain types of extremists - they assume everyone else is equal-but-opposite in extremity. In point of fact, English Canada as a whole does not require Quebec as a "moral repellent" to validate itself. English Canada as a whole has other concerns.
Quebec is racist!
Does English Canada has a whole have any concerns right now? I mean, the provinces are devoted to sticking it to the feds, but there isn't really a lot of common interest going on.
Quote from: Neil on August 01, 2013, 07:45:15 AM
Does English Canada has a whole have any concerns right now? I mean, the provinces are devoted to sticking it to the feds, but there isn't really a lot of common interest going on.
The project of not being the United States is a powerful unfying force.
Quote from: Malthus on August 01, 2013, 07:37:20 AM
Quote from: Grallon on August 01, 2013, 07:09:06 AM
Quote from: Jacob on July 31, 2013, 01:04:17 PM
Similarly, I don't agree with the lady in the blog you linked who called Quebec all kinds of terrible things. I do think that some of Quebec's language policies go a bit over board at times, but her characterization and conclusions are extremely polemical and rather offensive.
And yet she expressed a position that's quite prevalent in certain circles. Go no further than our dear Malthus here - who I note is conspicuously absent from this current exchange. He has voiced similar opinions in the past - in fact he used the same rethoric about tribalism, racism, etc - albeit without the vitriol that cunt put in her own piece. The position is part of the Canadian mythos - and like with any mythos - it requires a moral repellent to validate itself. It so happen that Quebec serves that purpose for many Canadians. I guess it's ok since Canada is used pretty much in the same way by many Quebecers.
G.
This is, of course, pure bullshit. If not, it ought to be easy to find a post in which I go on about the alleged "racism" of Quebec.
I have not commented on this discussion because I am not all that interested in some obscure BC decision on the costs of translation.
Grallon, you are looking into a mirror and seeing your own reflection, not seeing the "other" as it truly is - both in respect of English Canada as a whole, and of me in particular.
This appears to be characteristic of certain types of extremists - they assume everyone else is equal-but-opposite in extremity. In point of fact, English Canada as a whole does not require Quebec as a "moral repellent" to validate itself. English Canada as a whole has other concerns.
That's exactly what a racist denying their racism would say <_<
:P
Quote from: Valmy on August 01, 2013, 07:50:31 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 01, 2013, 07:45:15 AM
Does English Canada has a whole have any concerns right now? I mean, the provinces are devoted to sticking it to the feds, but there isn't really a lot of common interest going on.
The project of not being the United States is a powerful unfying force.
the possibility of a province turning into, say Florida of the north, is to great a chance to take. We must fight the American influence.
Quote from: Valmy on August 01, 2013, 07:50:31 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 01, 2013, 07:45:15 AM
Does English Canada has a whole have any concerns right now? I mean, the provinces are devoted to sticking it to the feds, but there isn't really a lot of common interest going on.
The project of not being the United States is a powerful unfying force.
Yeah, but at this point that goes without saying, and doesn't really take much work.
Quote from: HVC on August 01, 2013, 07:52:38 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 01, 2013, 07:50:31 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 01, 2013, 07:45:15 AM
Does English Canada has a whole have any concerns right now? I mean, the provinces are devoted to sticking it to the feds, but there isn't really a lot of common interest going on.
The project of not being the United States is a powerful unfying force.
the possibility of a province turning into, say Florida of the north, is to great a chance to take. We must fight the American influence.
The feds have control over firearms policy, and as much as the Harper Tories are considered pro-gun by Canadian standards, they would never allow people to carry handguns and encourage them to murder each other.
Quote from: Neil on August 01, 2013, 07:59:38 AM
Quote from: HVC on August 01, 2013, 07:52:38 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 01, 2013, 07:50:31 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 01, 2013, 07:45:15 AM
Does English Canada has a whole have any concerns right now? I mean, the provinces are devoted to sticking it to the feds, but there isn't really a lot of common interest going on.
The project of not being the United States is a powerful unfying force.
the possibility of a province turning into, say Florida of the north, is to great a chance to take. We must fight the American influence.
The feds have control over firearms policy, and as much as the Harper Tories are considered pro-gun by Canadian standards, they would never allow people to carry handguns and encourage them to murder each other.
Florida has problems that go much deeper then gun laws. Half the whacky news that the marti's of the world point to as proof of America's backwardness come from that messed up state.
Quote from: HVC on August 01, 2013, 07:51:30 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 01, 2013, 07:37:20 AM
Quote from: Grallon on August 01, 2013, 07:09:06 AM
Quote from: Jacob on July 31, 2013, 01:04:17 PM
Similarly, I don't agree with the lady in the blog you linked who called Quebec all kinds of terrible things. I do think that some of Quebec's language policies go a bit over board at times, but her characterization and conclusions are extremely polemical and rather offensive.
And yet she expressed a position that's quite prevalent in certain circles. Go no further than our dear Malthus here - who I note is conspicuously absent from this current exchange. He has voiced similar opinions in the past - in fact he used the same rethoric about tribalism, racism, etc - albeit without the vitriol that cunt put in her own piece. The position is part of the Canadian mythos - and like with any mythos - it requires a moral repellent to validate itself. It so happen that Quebec serves that purpose for many Canadians. I guess it's ok since Canada is used pretty much in the same way by many Quebecers.
G.
This is, of course, pure bullshit. If not, it ought to be easy to find a post in which I go on about the alleged "racism" of Quebec.
I have not commented on this discussion because I am not all that interested in some obscure BC decision on the costs of translation.
Grallon, you are looking into a mirror and seeing your own reflection, not seeing the "other" as it truly is - both in respect of English Canada as a whole, and of me in particular.
This appears to be characteristic of certain types of extremists - they assume everyone else is equal-but-opposite in extremity. In point of fact, English Canada as a whole does not require Quebec as a "moral repellent" to validate itself. English Canada as a whole has other concerns.
That's exactly what a racist denying their racism would say <_<
:P
Fine. I admit I'm racist against wise-cracking porto-canuck accountants. :P
:D
Quote from: Malthus on August 01, 2013, 08:04:03 AM
Fine. I admit I'm racist against wise-cracking porto-canuck accountants. :P
I am encouraged to see you finally coming to terms with your non-wise-cracking porto-canuck accountant privilege.
Quote from: HVC on August 01, 2013, 08:01:14 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 01, 2013, 07:59:38 AM
Quote from: HVC on August 01, 2013, 07:52:38 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 01, 2013, 07:50:31 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 01, 2013, 07:45:15 AM
Does English Canada has a whole have any concerns right now? I mean, the provinces are devoted to sticking it to the feds, but there isn't really a lot of common interest going on.
The project of not being the United States is a powerful unfying force.
the possibility of a province turning into, say Florida of the north, is to great a chance to take. We must fight the American influence.
The feds have control over firearms policy, and as much as the Harper Tories are considered pro-gun by Canadian standards, they would never allow people to carry handguns and encourage them to murder each other.
Florida has problems that go much deeper then gun laws. Half the whacky news that the marti's of the world point to as proof of America's backwardness come from that messed up state.
Yeah, part of their problem is that they're in the United States, and so they have all kinds of silly baggage with slavery and the other brutalities committed in the past. Florida has also been victimized by Republican depredations.
Quote from: Valmy on August 01, 2013, 08:10:52 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 01, 2013, 08:04:03 AM
Fine. I admit I'm racist against wise-cracking porto-canuck accountants. :P
I am encouraged to see you finally coming to terms with your non-wise-cracking porto-canuck accountant privilege.
I plan to redress this historical imbalance by making one mis-spelled witticism per week. :D
Quote from: Malthus on August 01, 2013, 08:23:02 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 01, 2013, 08:10:52 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 01, 2013, 08:04:03 AM
Fine. I admit I'm racist against wise-cracking porto-canuck accountants. :P
I am encouraged to see you finally coming to terms with your non-wise-cracking porto-canuck accountant privilege.
I plan to redress this historical imbalance by making one mis-spelled witticism per week. :D
I demand reparations for the years of mistreatment. That's right, one gold plated stroller. 24K, none of the shit gold leaf.
Quote from: HVC on August 01, 2013, 08:01:14 AM
Florida has problems that go much deeper then gun laws. Half the whacky news that the marti's of the world point to as proof of America's backwardness come from that messed up state.
We like to think we're better than Mississippi. :)
While Florida is indeed messed up, there's an awful lot of Canadians who vacation here. As a Porto-Canuck I would have thought you desired nothing more out of life than a winter home in Miami.
Quote from: Agelastus on August 01, 2013, 05:07:29 AM
Given the costs of translation services and the small proportion of natural French speakers in British Columbia compared to even other minorities (2% compared to 10% for the Chinese languages, for example) I, as a total outsider, see nothing wrong with the judgement.
well, that's the problem here. French speakers being put on the same level as Chinese, Hindu or Vietnamese speaker.
This country has 2 official languages, not 30. They are French and English.
When you do everything you can to prevent a community from thriving, by denying them basic services
in their own language, over time it goes down, to the point where people say "oh, there's not enough of them to warrant any services now". And that's what's happening in Canada.
Our language laws are sometimes idiotic, the Office de la Langue Français seems be fille to the rim with assholes, but no english canadian has ever been denied decent education in his language of choice. They always had their own school boards, they always had their own hospitals.
So bilinguism in this country is a real joke.
Quote from: viper37 on August 01, 2013, 05:34:36 PM
well, that's the problem here. French speakers being put on the same level as Chinese, Hindu or Vietnamese speaker.
That is not a problem.
If anything French language should be put on a lower level in BC if those numbers are correct.
Quote from: HVC on August 01, 2013, 07:52:38 AMthe possibility of a province turning into, say Florida of the north, is to great a chance to take. We must fight the American influence.
Canadians don't need a Florida of the north. They already have Florida of the south. Half of the Canadian pensioners live there all winter as it is.
Quote from: viper37 on August 01, 2013, 05:34:36 PMwell, that's the problem here. French speakers being put on the same level as Chinese, Hindu or Vietnamese speaker.
If French speakers are treated acceptably (and I'm not saying that they are), then surely it's up to the province in question how they'll treat Chinese or other language speakers?
In any case, at least in BC they are not being put on the same level. Whatever the problems the CSF may face, it is a French language school board while there are no other language specific school boards in the province.
QuoteThis country has 2 official languages, not 30. They are French and English.
Sure.
QuoteWhen you do everything you can to prevent a community from thriving, by denying them basic services
in their own language, over time it goes down, to the point where people say "oh, there's not enough of them to warrant any services now".
Agreed, and we shouldn't encourage that.
QuoteAnd that's what's happening in Canada.
Are you sure. Is the French population in British Columbia significantly smaller than it was? And is this due to assimilation (rather, than say an influx of non-French speakers)?
QuoteOur language laws are sometimes idiotic, the Office de la Langue Français seems be fille to the rim with assholes, but no english canadian has ever been denied decent education in his language of choice. They always had their own school boards, they always had their own hospitals.
So bilinguism in this country is a real joke.
Is seems that you think that there should be a perfect mirroring of language policies across the country, so that however Anglophones are treated in Quebec is how Francophones should be treated in every other province from New Brunswick to British Columbia?
If so, that doesn't seem reasonable given the different population levels. Secondly, it would seem to require the provinces to set language policy together, taking away individual decision making which doesn't seem like it would suit Quebec either.
Question for you: are there any Canadian provinces where there are no French school boards?
Second question for you: do you think language specific hospitals should be provided in a community if there is not a sufficient population to support it?
Quote from: Jacob on August 01, 2013, 07:24:02 PM
Agreed, and we shouldn't encourage that.
:lol:
You're such an ass.
Quote from: Jacob on August 01, 2013, 07:24:02 PM
Are you sure. Is the French population in British Columbia significantly smaller than it was? And is this due to assimilation (rather, than say an influx of non-French speakers)?
French people didn't colonize British Columbia, so I suspect French speakers came, and still come from elsewhere in Canada.
It's the entire country historical hostile attitude toward French that has given diminished numbers.
Quote
Is seems that you think that there should be a perfect mirroring of language policies across the country, so that however Anglophones are treated in Quebec is how Francophones should be treated in every other province from New Brunswick to British Columbia?
If English had been discriminated instead of French, the numbers wouldn't be here today...
QuoteQuestion for you: are there any Canadian provinces where there are no French school boards?
Manitoba was forced to grant them in 1990s. Ontario had been forced to allow French to control their school boards in the 70s/80s. For New Brunswick, that was the 60s. It's a pretty recent phenomon. Kinda like women's rights, abortion and such novelties ;)
Quote
Second question for you: do you think language specific hospitals should be provided in a community if there is not a sufficient population to support it?
Isn't this the case in Quebec? We are building two distinct super university hospitals, one for the English community, one for the French community instead of a bilingual ones (that's on top of all the english only hospitals)? I count 14 (out of 31), last time I checked, plus one for the Chinese.
Meanwhile in Ontario, they're still threatening to shut down the only bilingual hospital runned by francophones.
Quote from: viper37 on August 05, 2013, 09:45:29 AM
Quote from: Jacob on August 01, 2013, 07:24:02 PM
Are you sure. Is the French population in British Columbia significantly smaller than it was? And is this due to assimilation (rather, than say an influx of non-French speakers)?
French people didn't colonize British Columbia, so I suspect French speakers came, and still come from elsewhere in Canada.
It's the entire country historical hostile attitude toward French that has given diminished numbers.
Quote
I wonder why French immersion is in such high demand in English Canada? :hmm:
Saw a byline on Le Monde: Obama annule sa rencontre avec Poutine and I thought "This is going to torpedo our relations with Canada." :(
As it turns out they meant a different Poutine; one considerably less savory.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 05, 2013, 10:07:08 AM
I wonder why French immersion is in such high demand in English Canada? :hmm:
There's more french immersion, but less students exposed to french language overall:
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/130528/dq130528b-eng.htm
Quote
Decline in the proportion of students learning French
Outside Quebec, the recent slowdown in bilingualism occurred in tandem with two factors: the decline in the proportion of primary and secondary students exposed to French as a second language, and the increase in the number of immigrants.
Between the school years 1991/1992 and 2010/2011, the proportion of primary and secondary students outside Quebec learning French as a second language in a regular public school curriculum declined 24%, from 1.8 million to 1.4 million.
Even though the number of students registered in French-immersion programs rose 28% over the period—from 267,000 in 1991/1992 to 341,000 in 2010/2011—the overall proportion of students exposed to some degree of French in public schools declined from 53% to 44%.
At the same time, the proportion of young (aged 15 to 19) bilingual Anglophones outside Quebec decreased constantly in every census year since 1996.
English–French bilingualism was also influenced by the influx of new immigrants, whose mother tongue is neither English nor French in approximately 80% of cases.
Outside Quebec, immigrants (6%) were less likely than the Canadian-born (11%) to report being able to conduct a conversation in both English and French and thus contributed to the increase in the non-bilingual population.
In Quebec—contrary to elsewhere in the country—the immigrant population contributed to the increase in bilingualism, as immigrants in that province had higher rates of English–French bilingualism (51%) than the Canadian-born (42%).
QuoteIn Quebec—contrary to elsewhere in the country—the immigrant population contributed to the increase in bilingualism, as immigrants in that province had higher rates of English–French bilingualism (51%) than the Canadian-born (42%).
Which makes sense as they need French to get by in Quebec and English to get along with anyone else. :D
Quote from: garbon on August 07, 2013, 03:22:44 PM
Which makes sense as they need French to get by in Quebec and English to get along with anyone else. :D
They don't need French to get by in Quebec, but they often come from former French colonies and they studies in international schools were english & french were taught.
Also, given that many anglo-Quebecois still don't want to learn French and the younger anglos move to Ontario rather than adapt, it kinda makes sense, yeah.
Quote from: viper37 on August 07, 2013, 11:14:30 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 07, 2013, 03:22:44 PM
Which makes sense as they need French to get by in Quebec and English to get along with anyone else. :D
They don't need French to get by in Quebec, but they often come from former French colonies and they studies in international schools were english & french were taught.
True. They could just be treated rudely for not speaking French. ;)
It's Quebec. They'll treat you rudely no matter what.
Quote from: Neil on August 07, 2013, 11:47:45 PM
It's Quebec. They'll treat you rudely no matter what.
I think you have us mistaken for New York City.
New Yorkers are a convivial sort. Just don't waste their time.
So one way not to be endearing - don't hold the subway train up 5 minutes because you felt disrespected when you tried to shove into a crowded car. I was surprised to see one of the conductors (well one of those people in middle cars that watch to make sure everything is clear) get off the train to deal with him.
Quote from: garbon on August 07, 2013, 11:30:53 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 07, 2013, 11:14:30 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 07, 2013, 03:22:44 PM
Which makes sense as they need French to get by in Quebec and English to get along with anyone else. :D
They don't need French to get by in Quebec, but they often come from former French colonies and they studies in international schools were english & french were taught.
True. They could just be treated rudely for not speaking French. ;)
were you ever? :)
There are lot of english-only enclaves. Speaking French west of St-Laurent street in Montreal will get you dirty looks ;)
Quote from: viper37 on August 08, 2013, 11:48:25 AM
Speaking French west of St-Laurent street in Montreal will get you dirty looks ;)
Probably because everyone understands what you are saying about them. ;)
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 08, 2013, 12:06:35 PM
Probably because everyone understands what you are saying about them. ;)
:lol:
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 08, 2013, 12:06:35 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 08, 2013, 11:48:25 AM
Speaking French west of St-Laurent street in Montreal will get you dirty looks ;)
Probably because everyone understands what you are saying about them. ;)
In downtown Montreal, english is still the language you'll most often hear. People will use english first, then switch to French if you insist.
I find hard to believe all those tales of English Canadians who were "molested" by angry mob of French speakers, especially when most American tourists will say they were very well treated in Quebec...
Quote from: viper37 on August 08, 2013, 01:10:36 PM
I find hard to believe all those tales of English Canadians who were "molested" by angry mob of French speakers, especially when most American tourists will say they were very well treated in Quebec...
I've never actually heard any such tales.
Either of English speaking people being molested by mobs ...
or of Montrealers being polite to Americans. :P
Quote from: Malthus on August 08, 2013, 01:23:20 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 08, 2013, 01:10:36 PM
I find hard to believe all those tales of English Canadians who were "molested" by angry mob of French speakers, especially when most American tourists will say they were very well treated in Quebec...
I've never actually heard any such tales.
Either of English speaking people being molested by mobs ... or of Montrealers being polite to Americans. :P
:lol:
Viper - I generally had everyone start up in French unless I spoke in English*. Most people didn't give any lip though there were a couple in QC. Oh and that waitress in Montreal who proceeded to give me the opposite of everything I asked for. :D
*in fact, I had one transaction conducted entirely in French but that's because I never spoke up. A price check at the grocery store.
Quote from: viper37 on August 08, 2013, 01:10:36 PMIn downtown Montreal, english is still the language you'll most often hear. People will use english first, then switch to French if you insist.
Is that okay?
QuoteI find hard to believe all those tales of English Canadians who were "molested" by angry mob of French speakers, especially when most American tourists will say they were very well treated in Quebec...
I haven't heard any such tales of Anglos being molested. Perhaps they're reported more prominently in the French press?
Quote from: viper37 on August 08, 2013, 01:10:36 PM
I find hard to believe all those tales of English Canadians who were "molested" by angry mob of French speakers
So do I - at least I would not believe them if I had heard any such tales.
Quote from: Malthus on August 08, 2013, 01:23:20 PM
Either of English speaking people being molested by mobs
obviously, I was exagerating a little :)
But on blog comments, it's frequent that you'll see English Canadians complaining that Quebecers are rude to them while Americans consider they met very polite people ;)
Quote from: Jacob on August 08, 2013, 01:40:52 PM
I haven't heard any such tales of Anglos being molested. Perhaps they're reported more prominently in the French press?
English Canadians blogs on sites such as Toronto Star, Globe And Mail, Sun networks, National Post, etc.
Read the comments at the end of the weekly anti-Quebec editorial, it's enlighting ;)
Quote from: viper37 on August 08, 2013, 02:14:58 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 08, 2013, 01:40:52 PM
I haven't heard any such tales of Anglos being molested. Perhaps they're reported more prominently in the French press?
English Canadians blogs on sites such as Toronto Star, Globe And Mail, Sun networks, National Post, etc.
Read the comments at the end of the weekly anti-Quebec editorial, it's enlighting ;)
Reading the comments on newspaper sites is never enlightening. <_<
Quote from: viper37 on August 08, 2013, 02:14:58 PM
English Canadians blogs on sites such as Toronto Star, Globe And Mail, Sun networks, National Post, etc.
Read the comments at the end of the weekly anti-Quebec editorial, it's enlighting ;)
Read the comments?
Are you mad? That's a terrible idea.
Quote from: Jacob on August 08, 2013, 02:29:10 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 08, 2013, 02:14:58 PM
English Canadians blogs on sites such as Toronto Star, Globe And Mail, Sun networks, National Post, etc.
Read the comments at the end of the weekly anti-Quebec editorial, it's enlighting ;)
Read the comments?
Are you mad? That's a terrible idea.
:D
Here, I'd like you to read the comments on this YouTube cat video, please. I'd like a full report.
Quote from: fhdz on August 08, 2013, 02:32:26 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 08, 2013, 02:29:10 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 08, 2013, 02:14:58 PM
English Canadians blogs on sites such as Toronto Star, Globe And Mail, Sun networks, National Post, etc.
Read the comments at the end of the weekly anti-Quebec editorial, it's enlighting ;)
Read the comments?
Are you mad? That's a terrible idea.
:D
Here, I'd like you to read the comments on this YouTube cat video, please. I'd like a full report.
Guys, please. Be kind. You are trampling on Viper's whole world-view with your mockery.
:P
Quote from: viper37 on August 08, 2013, 02:13:56 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 08, 2013, 01:23:20 PM
Either of English speaking people being molested by mobs
obviously, I was exagerating a little :)
But on blog comments, it's frequent that you'll see English Canadians complaining that Quebecers are rude to them while Americans consider they met very polite people ;)
Montrealers, polite?
Now I know you are exaggerating. ;)
Quote from: fhdz on August 08, 2013, 02:32:26 PM
:D
Here, I'd like you to read the comments on this YouTube cat video, please. I'd like a full report.
I would love to study in a human science field, like sociology and be paid to read these things. The few glimpse I got of Youtube is they are fucking insane. And they usually switch to "America is Evil", "Israel is Nazi" and the "Nazis were cool" very quickly.
Quote from: Malthus on August 08, 2013, 02:36:11 PM
Montrealers, polite?
Now I know you are exaggerating. ;)
well, I didn't say specifically Montrealers. They are as polite as Parisians ;)
If English Canadians' taste of Quebec is only Montreal, than I understand the negative complaints ;)
Quote from: viper37 on August 08, 2013, 02:57:43 PM
Quote from: fhdz on August 08, 2013, 02:32:26 PM
:D
Here, I'd like you to read the comments on this YouTube cat video, please. I'd like a full report.
I would love to study in a human science field, like sociology and be paid to read these things. The few glimpse I got of Youtube is they are fucking insane. And they usually switch to "America is Evil", "Israel is Nazi" and the "Nazis were cool" very quickly.
I interviewed for a job once at a company that did just that. Thought was even if some comments are garbage, they are out there and influencing people. (One of their clients was one of the arab emirates which was trying to improve its image). Unfortunately, they only wanted to pay 35k.
Quote from: viper37 on August 08, 2013, 03:00:52 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 08, 2013, 02:36:11 PM
Montrealers, polite?
Now I know you are exaggerating. ;)
well, I didn't say specifically Montrealers. They are as polite as Parisians ;)
If English Canadians' taste of Quebec is only Montreal, than I understand the negative complaints ;)
Its hard to tell what might be motivating someone who writes in a comment. Even harder to try to understand why anyone would read them. Still harder to comprehend how anyone could make generalized assumptions about a linquistic group from such comments.
I'd like to go to Quebec. Among other things, to visit Unibroue in Chambly. I figure my wife could handle speaking the French for us if that were an issue.
Quote from: derspiess on August 08, 2013, 03:10:03 PM
I'd like to go to Quebec. Among other things, to visit Unibroue in Chambly. I figure my wife could handle the French for us if that were an issue.
Quebec City is lovely.
Quote from: garbon on August 08, 2013, 03:06:44 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 08, 2013, 02:57:43 PM
Quote from: fhdz on August 08, 2013, 02:32:26 PM
:D
Here, I'd like you to read the comments on this YouTube cat video, please. I'd like a full report.
I would love to study in a human science field, like sociology and be paid to read these things. The few glimpse I got of Youtube is they are fucking insane. And they usually switch to "America is Evil", "Israel is Nazi" and the "Nazis were cool" very quickly.
I interviewed for a job once at a company that did just that. Thought was even if some comments are garbage, they are out there and influencing people. (One of their clients was one of the arab emirates which was trying to improve its image). Unfortunately, they only wanted to pay 35k.
Hey, we both know people who would happily tell the UAE that idiots on the Internet think they are all are stinking sand niggers for $35K . :D
Hey, CdM, you reading this?! :hmm:
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 08, 2013, 03:11:03 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 08, 2013, 03:10:03 PM
I'd like to go to Quebec. Among other things, to visit Unibroue in Chambly. I figure my wife could handle the French for us if that were an issue.
Quebec City is lovely.
Yes although I would wager mainly as a couple's getaway.
Quote from: garbon on August 08, 2013, 03:13:23 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 08, 2013, 03:11:03 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 08, 2013, 03:10:03 PM
I'd like to go to Quebec. Among other things, to visit Unibroue in Chambly. I figure my wife could handle the French for us if that were an issue.
Quebec City is lovely.
Yes although I would wager mainly as a couple's getaway.
Yes, and since he was talking about taking his wife there my post seems to be right on topic. ;)
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 08, 2013, 03:15:15 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 08, 2013, 03:13:23 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 08, 2013, 03:11:03 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 08, 2013, 03:10:03 PM
I'd like to go to Quebec. Among other things, to visit Unibroue in Chambly. I figure my wife could handle the French for us if that were an issue.
Quebec City is lovely.
Yes although I would wager mainly as a couple's getaway.
Yes, and since he was talking about taking his wife there my post seems to be right on topic. ;)
I didn't say it wasn't. I was just specifying as I don't see that mentioning one's wife negates one's children. :P
Quote from: garbon on August 08, 2013, 03:13:23 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 08, 2013, 03:11:03 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 08, 2013, 03:10:03 PM
I'd like to go to Quebec. Among other things, to visit Unibroue in Chambly. I figure my wife could handle the French for us if that were an issue.
Quebec City is lovely.
Yes although I would wager mainly as a couple's getaway.
True, though they do have a cool fort with cannon. My kid loves looking at forts.
Quote from: garbon on August 08, 2013, 03:17:35 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 08, 2013, 03:15:15 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 08, 2013, 03:13:23 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 08, 2013, 03:11:03 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 08, 2013, 03:10:03 PM
I'd like to go to Quebec. Among other things, to visit Unibroue in Chambly. I figure my wife could handle the French for us if that were an issue.
Quebec City is lovely.
Yes although I would wager mainly as a couple's getaway.
Yes, and since he was talking about taking his wife there my post seems to be right on topic. ;)
I didn't say it wasn't. I was just specifying as I don't see that mentioning one's wife negates one's children. :P
Oh, I thought you were being self centered commenting on it not being much of a singles city. As for kids, there are tonnes of things to do there.
Edit: Unless you are Tyr, then you would run out of things to do in 2.5 hours.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 08, 2013, 03:23:05 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 08, 2013, 03:17:35 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 08, 2013, 03:15:15 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 08, 2013, 03:13:23 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 08, 2013, 03:11:03 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 08, 2013, 03:10:03 PM
I'd like to go to Quebec. Among other things, to visit Unibroue in Chambly. I figure my wife could handle the French for us if that were an issue.
Quebec City is lovely.
Yes although I would wager mainly as a couple's getaway.
Yes, and since he was talking about taking his wife there my post seems to be right on topic. ;)
I didn't say it wasn't. I was just specifying as I don't see that mentioning one's wife negates one's children. :P
Oh, I thought you were being self centered commenting on it not being much of a singles city. As for kids, there are tonnes of things to do there.
Edit: Unless you are Tyr, then you would run out of things to do in 2.5 hours.
You only see the worst in me. -_-
Good call on the Jos meme.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 08, 2013, 03:09:09 PM
Its hard to tell what might be motivating someone who writes in a comment. Even harder to try to understand why anyone would read them. Still harder to comprehend how anyone could make generalized assumptions about a linquistic group from such comments.
it's the fact they are considered acceptable from "respected" newspapers like the Globe&Mail and National Post more than the comments in themselves.
See, a recent example was Facebook refusing to shut down a hate page about the Lac Mégantic tragedy.
"The Lac-Megantic Train Disaster Was Hilarious "
"Ever tried deep-fried habitant before?"
"RIP you majestic train... all the oil that could have been used will be dearly missed "
"I'm just not being moved by this. As an english speaking Canadian, Quebec has always seemed like the other side of the world to me. They speak French and consider themselves 'distinct'. 25 dead and 25 still missing, that's the tragedy of the century by Canadian standards but it might as well be Nigeria. "
and so on.
Facebook answer at first?
"We reviewed the page you reported for containing credible threat of violence and found it doesn't violate our community standard...."
Imagine doing that about the Calgary floods... The page would be taken down faster than I could type it.
Try any racist comment towards english-canadians on a french newspaper, and it will be taken down.
:lol:
Those kind of comments are standard on just about any topic.
When I was in Montreal, I was too busy trying to survive their shitty driving. About as bad as Massholes.
I don't recall any problems on that front. :blush:
Maybe they improved. It's been 12 years or so.
Quote from: garbon on August 08, 2013, 03:35:14 PM
:lol:
Those kind of comments are standard on just about any topic.
Also, it's a bit of a stretch to hold English Canada responsible for Facebook's service and community standards.
Quote from: Jacob on August 08, 2013, 03:56:53 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 08, 2013, 03:35:14 PM
:lol:
Those kind of comments are standard on just about any topic.
Also, it's a bit of a stretch to hold English Canada responsible for Facebook's service and community standards.
They are in on the conspiracy. It was part of an earlier mission statement drafted by Zuckerberg.
Quote from: viper37 on August 08, 2013, 03:32:09 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 08, 2013, 03:09:09 PM
Its hard to tell what might be motivating someone who writes in a comment. Even harder to try to understand why anyone would read them. Still harder to comprehend how anyone could make generalized assumptions about a linquistic group from such comments.
it's the fact they are considered acceptable from "respected" newspapers like the Globe&Mail and National Post more than the comments in themselves.
You really think the Editorial Board of the Globe is taking an active hand at reading and "accepting" the comments? Really?
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 08, 2013, 03:41:55 PM
Maybe they improved. It's been 12 years or so.
not really, no. Montrealers are the worst drivers of the province, and confusing road signs on the island and surrounding areas doesn't help one bit.
We're the best drivers. It takes skills to navigate those roads!
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 08, 2013, 04:45:36 PM
You really think the Editorial Board of the Globe is taking an active hand at reading and "accepting" the comments? Really?
La Presse, Le Devoir, le Journal de Montréal/Québec, Radio-Canada, they all have people reviewing comments posted on their boards.
Besides, I'm pretty sure there are people who select wich letters appear in their comments page, on their print edition. I don't believe for a minute they are randomly selected. Not for the Quebec newspapers I read on a regular basis, at the very least.
Quote from: viper37 on August 09, 2013, 10:18:07 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 08, 2013, 04:45:36 PM
You really think the Editorial Board of the Globe is taking an active hand at reading and "accepting" the comments? Really?
La Presse, Le Devoir, le Journal de Montréal/Québec, Radio-Canada, they all have people reviewing comments posted on their boards.
They dont review the comments to censor, they review to enforce whatever online policies they have. Put it this way Viper, would you really be in favour of a news site censoring points of view they dont agree with?
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 09, 2013, 10:27:07 AM
They dont review the comments to censor, they review to enforce whatever online policies they have. Put it this way Viper, would you really be in favour of a news site censoring points of view they dont agree with?
I am in favour of a fair policy. Let's put it that way: what are the odds that I could post an anti-semitic comment on the National Post? Or that I could blame a particular riot on "niggers who sits on their asses all day long" on the Globe&Mail? What are the odds the Toronto Sun would let a comment slip by where I say it's a good thing there's a flood in Calgary, so that the more Albertans are drowned the better the country will be?
It will be censored.
But if it's against Quebec, it ain't.
And we got editorials&columns like I previously posted. Regularly. Heck, a columnist of the National Post blamed law 101 and the racism of Quebecois for the Polytechnique and Dawson College shootout. Let's try something like that in a Quebec newspaper next time there's shootout in Toronto, blaming the Ontarians for not integrating their immigrants and disrespecting them.
Viper do you not see the difference between someone usingl a racial slur and a comment about politics in Quebec?
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 09, 2013, 11:56:25 AM
Viper do you not see the difference between someone usingl a racial slur and a comment about politics in Quebec?
I do, but I'm not sure you do...
:lol:
Go on then Viper. Educate me.
Yahoo news would have all of them. :)
who really cares about language? i mean, besides the obvious
Quote from: LaCroix on August 10, 2013, 06:34:37 AM
who really cares about language? i mean, besides the obvious
Were you drunk when you made this insightful post?
Quote from: garbon on August 10, 2013, 09:39:45 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on August 10, 2013, 06:34:37 AM
who really cares about language? i mean, besides the obvious
Were you drunk when you made this insightful post?
there are no points except the obvious points :P
Vipes, I read this and thought of you. :P
QuoteMe: "Hi! Welcome to [restaurant]; will it just be the two of you dining today?"
Woman: *in a thick French accent* "Yes, two."
(The female customer then turns to her male companion and begins speaking very angrily in French.)
Woman: "This is just terrible; no one here speaks French. This is discrimination; we should be able to get service in our own language."
Me: *speaking French* "I apologize. I didn't realize that the two of you spoke French. I'd be more than happy to help you today!"
Woman: *speaking English* "Ugh! Your French is just awful! Don't even bother; I'm going to speak English. I don't want to have to listen to your terrible accent for our entire meal."
If it happenned in Montreal, I can understand the frustration of the customer, even though she's a bitch.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 09, 2013, 12:25:29 PM
:lol:
Go on then Viper. Educate me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Wong_controversy
Wong suggested that the school shootings might have been related to the fact that the perpetrators were not old-stock French Québécois; and they had been alienated by a Quebec society concerned with "racial purity."If this isn't a racial slur, what is it?? She is portraying us as nazis.
Another one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Kay_controversy
This one, although it hit close to the mark, goes one to generalise to all of Quebec (
"The Rise of Quebecistan was the title of this piece) has anti-semitic views, and mentions the anti-semetic past of Quebec, while conveniently ignoring that it was no better in Canada. In fact, one could say that modern neo-nazis group are more prevalent in Western Canada than in Quebec, and Heritage Front was at one time very close to the Reform Party and the Canadian Alliance.
Instead of taking the direct approach, she's subtly hinting that we're all a bunch of nazis.
Now, I'll gladly admit the QPC reaction was just as idiotic. But it doesn't excuse Kay's grossly exagerated and barely factual op-ed.
He's another one of our friends, Howard Galganov:
He worked to bring awareness to those outside of Quebec on the human rights abuses being enacted in Quebec against anglophones, as noted by both the United Nations and the Supreme Court of Canada.Now, tell me, seriously. When you read this: "human rights abuses", what comes to your mind? And how is it worst than what is happening to French Canadians everywhere, often unable to obtain sufficient founding or even outright education in their language?
Do you think that Manitoba was home to human rights abuses against the French up to the mid-90s? Ontario for trying to shut down Montfort Hospital? British Columbia for not providing sufficient funds to french public schools? Alberta for not offering subsidized French education everywhere from pre-kindergarden to post university?
Quote from: viper37 on August 12, 2013, 02:31:34 PM
If it happenned in Montreal, I can understand the frustration of the customer, even though she's a bitch.
Site just said Canada. Oh and yeah, probably totally reasonable for a person to assume that someone doesn't speak French if they approach in English. Weren't you the one who said English is always used first in Montreal?
Crap, I lost my post - I am not going to retype that one.
But the upshot is this - everyone one of those stories were about someone talking about the politics of Quebec. If that is what you think those stories are the equivalent of calling someone a nigger then you and I have a very different view of the world.
Quote from: garbon on August 12, 2013, 03:06:06 PM
Oh and yeah, probably totally reasonable for a person to assume that someone doesn't speak French if they approach in English. Weren't you the one who said English is always used first in Montreal?
First line:
"Me: "Hi! Welcome to [restaurant]; will it just be the two of you dining today?""The waitress used english first. It's acceptable in Toronto, not in Montreal. It gives the impression she doesn't speak french.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 12, 2013, 03:11:31 PM
But the upshot is this - everyone one of those stories were about someone talking about the politics of Quebec. If that is what you think those stories are the equivalent of calling someone a nigger then you and I have a very different view of the world.
oh come one. They are broad generalization of a people based on an exageration of the effect of the laws.
That be like saying all those people with "ISRAEL=NAZI" signs are simply critics of Israel policies toward colonization of the west bank and East Jerusalem. Same as people burning GW Bush dummies were "only critics of United States foreign policy". If someone was to burn and trample the Canadian flag, you'd say it's a simple critic of the country's policies?
But again, you are the one who told me that people always approach with English first in Montreal.
Besides, even if that was a faux pas, that doesn't explain acting haughty once the waitress apologized.
Quote from: viper37 on August 12, 2013, 04:09:17 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 12, 2013, 03:11:31 PM
But the upshot is this - everyone one of those stories were about someone talking about the politics of Quebec. If that is what you think those stories are the equivalent of calling someone a nigger then you and I have a very different view of the world.
oh come one. They are broad generalization of a people based on an exageration of the effect of the laws.
That be like saying all those people with "ISRAEL=NAZI" signs are simply critics of Israel policies toward colonization of the west bank and East Jerusalem. Same as people burning GW Bush dummies were "only critics of United States foreign policy". If someone was to burn and trample the Canadian flag, you'd say it's a simple critic of the country's policies?
Its nowhere close to saying that. The first is an off the whole sociological mumbo jumbo piece regarding alienation. The second is rooted in a concern that anti-Israeli voices get more of a hearing (which was entirely valid at the time of that article given that pro-Israeli speakers couldnt speak at universities in Quebec because the administrations of those universities knucked under the pressure of protest groups) and I have no idea where you are going with the third one.
Quote from: garbon on August 12, 2013, 04:10:29 PM
Besides, even if that was a faux pas, that doesn't explain acting haughty once the waitress apologized.
I didn't excuse that, I said she was a bitch... ;) It happens everytime, even between francophones. Don't tell me it never happens in New York? I heard it happens in Switzerland, though... :D
Quote from: garbon on August 12, 2013, 04:09:41 PM
But again, you are the one who told me that people always approach with English first in Montreal.
not always. Often, more than "occasionally". It gets annoying, especially when you know they are francophones. But anyway, unless I see it's a tourist seeking his way, or on the verge of dying in a Subway because "No Mustard, I'm allergic" is answered by "ok, a lot of mustard" in French ;) , I usually avoid english in my home province. There's no reason francophones should speak english between each another, outside of special circumstances.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 12, 2013, 05:06:16 PM
Its nowhere close to saying that.
Actually, it is. The first one clearly compairs us with nazis. The third one, at the very least, refers to 3rd world countries where even the US would hesitate to transfer foreign prisoners.
Quote(which was entirely valid at the time of that article given that pro-Israeli speakers couldnt speak at universities in Quebec because the administrations of those universities knucked under the pressure of protest groups) and I have no idea where you are going with the third one.
Pro-Isralei speakers come all the time in various universities. Concordia, one of Montreal's
english university, however, has an habit of being anti-israeli. You do know that we have more than one university? Besides, wasn't Ann Coulter speech cancelled in Ottawa? Do you think Ontarians are massively anti-americans? I can't remember the Globe&Mail saying so...
I personally think of Quebecois as Nazis. Viper would be Eichmann, Grallon would be Rohm and Grey Fox would be like a Rudolf Hoss commanding a camp where they re-educate people to speak really bad French.
Edit: Oex is Rosenberg, Rex Francorum is the guy who did the soundtrack for Triumph of the Will.
Quote from: viper37 on August 12, 2013, 09:13:23 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 12, 2013, 04:09:41 PM
But again, you are the one who told me that people always approach with English first in Montreal.
not always. Often, more than "occasionally". It gets annoying, especially when you know they are francophones. But anyway, unless I see it's a tourist seeking his way, or on the verge of dying in a Subway because "No Mustard, I'm allergic" is answered by "ok, a lot of mustard" in French ;) , I usually avoid english in my home province. There's no reason francophones should speak english between each another, outside of special circumstances.
I don't think I'll ever understand your position. It doesn't bother me one bit if someone starts speaking to me in another language.
Quote from: viper37 on August 12, 2013, 09:12:30 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 12, 2013, 04:10:29 PM
Besides, even if that was a faux pas, that doesn't explain acting haughty once the waitress apologized.
I didn't excuse that, I said she was a bitch... ;) It happens everytime, even between francophones. Don't tell me it never happens in New York? I heard it happens in Switzerland, though... :D
What happens? Acting haughty?
Quote from: Neil on August 12, 2013, 09:48:22 PM
I personally think of Quebecois as Nazis. Viper would be Eichmann, Grallon would be Rohm and Grey Fox would be like a Rudolf Hoss commanding a camp where they re-educate people to speak really bad French.
Edit: Oex is Rosenberg, Rex Francorum is the guy who did the soundtrack for Triumph of the Will.
:XD:
Quote from: Neil on August 12, 2013, 09:48:22 PM
I personally think of Quebecois as Nazis. Viper would be Eichmann, Grallon would be Rohm and Grey Fox would be like a Rudolf Hoss commanding a camp where they re-educate people to speak really bad French.
Edit: Oex is Rosenberg, Rex Francorum is the guy who did the soundtrack for Triumph of the Will.
:lol:
This pointless discussion suddenly took a turn for the amusing.
-----
Viper,
I'm puzzled as to why you go on wasting time with these people? It's not like you'll see them acknowledge any of your points - this is Languish after all. But even by Languish standards this particular topic brings out the worst in some posters - making it an even bigger exercise in futility.
G.
Quote from: garbon on August 12, 2013, 10:04:31 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 12, 2013, 09:12:30 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 12, 2013, 04:10:29 PM
Besides, even if that was a faux pas, that doesn't explain acting haughty once the waitress apologized.
I didn't excuse that, I said she was a bitch... ;) It happens everytime, even between francophones. Don't tell me it never happens in New York? I heard it happens in Switzerland, though... :D
What happens? Acting haughty?
the Oprah story. It was reported in the local medias, I can't imagine it didn't make CNN news headline for 24hrs? She went into a luxury store to buy a purse, the saleswoman said "not this one, it's too expensive" (38 000$). Apparently, it made a big story in the US, but I usually don't bother with this stuff, so I didn't even check it out.
Quote from: garbon on August 12, 2013, 10:04:09 PM
I don't think I'll ever understand your position. It doesn't bother me one bit if someone starts speaking to me in another language.
If, in New York, people would constantly adress you in Chinese first, over time, you'd probably get annoyed. It's not the isolated fact, it's the constant reminder that we are considered a colony.
With 95% of the people in the country speaking english, other languages are not a threat, yet, there are english-only movements accros the US, and many States have felt the need to establish English as their only official language.
Quote from: Grallon on August 13, 2013, 06:49:33 AM
Viper,
I'm puzzled as to why you go on wasting time with these people? It's not like you'll see them acknowledge any of your points - this is Languish after all. But even by Languish standards this particular topic brings out the worst in some posters - making it an even bigger exercise in futility.
G.
I believe there is good in all humans. Yes, even Neil. :P
Quote from: viper37 on August 13, 2013, 08:36:49 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 12, 2013, 10:04:09 PM
I don't think I'll ever understand your position. It doesn't bother me one bit if someone starts speaking to me in another language.
If, in New York, people would constantly adress you in Chinese first, over time, you'd probably get annoyed. It's not the isolated fact, it's the constant reminder that we are considered a colony.
You have to make up your mind. It is either all the time or occasionally. It can't be both. ;)
Oh and no, if they would immediately switch to English when I responded in English, why would I care?
Quote from: viper37 on August 13, 2013, 08:34:57 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 12, 2013, 10:04:31 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 12, 2013, 09:12:30 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 12, 2013, 04:10:29 PM
Besides, even if that was a faux pas, that doesn't explain acting haughty once the waitress apologized.
I didn't excuse that, I said she was a bitch... ;) It happens everytime, even between francophones. Don't tell me it never happens in New York? I heard it happens in Switzerland, though... :D
What happens? Acting haughty?
the Oprah story. It was reported in the local medias, I can't imagine it didn't make CNN news headline for 24hrs? She went into a luxury store to buy a purse, the saleswoman said "not this one, it's too expensive" (38 000$). Apparently, it made a big story in the US, but I usually don't bother with this stuff, so I didn't even check it out.
:huh:
What is this?
Quote from: garbon on August 13, 2013, 08:42:44 AM
You have to make up your mind. It is either all the time or occasionally. It can't be both. ;)
more than occasionally ;)
Francophones are latins, they are not good with numbers, "all the time" does not equal 100% :P
Quote
Oh and no, if they would immediately switch to English when I responded in English, why would I care?
Give it time? :)
Quote from: garbon on August 13, 2013, 08:43:27 AM
Quote from: viper37 on August 13, 2013, 08:34:57 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 12, 2013, 10:04:31 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 12, 2013, 09:12:30 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 12, 2013, 04:10:29 PM
Besides, even if that was a faux pas, that doesn't explain acting haughty once the waitress apologized.
I didn't excuse that, I said she was a bitch... ;) It happens everytime, even between francophones. Don't tell me it never happens in New York? I heard it happens in Switzerland, though... :D
What happens? Acting haughty?
the Oprah story. It was reported in the local medias, I can't imagine it didn't make CNN news headline for 24hrs? She went into a luxury store to buy a purse, the saleswoman said "not this one, it's too expensive" (38 000$). Apparently, it made a big story in the US, but I usually don't bother with this stuff, so I didn't even check it out.
:huh:
What is this?
you forced me to read shitty newspaper article? I hate you Garbon, I hate you!! :D I tried to stay away from such idiocies, but here it is:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2389798/Oprah-Winfrey-branded-liar-Swiss-sales-assistant-racist-handbag-row.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2389798/Oprah-Winfrey-branded-liar-Swiss-sales-assistant-racist-handbag-row.html)
Anyway, the point was that there are haughty people everywhere :)
Quote from: viper37 on August 13, 2013, 08:55:17 AM
Anyway, the point was that there are haughty people everywhere :)
Well, of course.
Quote from: viper37 on August 13, 2013, 08:53:21 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 13, 2013, 08:42:44 AM
You have to make up your mind. It is either all the time or occasionally. It can't be both. ;)
more than occasionally ;)
Francophones are latins, they are not good with numbers, "all the time" does not equal 100% :P
Quote
Oh and no, if they would immediately switch to English when I responded in English, why would I care?
Give it time? :)
I could see it if you didn't know English but you do, so it isn't as though it is making your life more difficult. At least in my scenario there would be a little difficulty as I wouldn't know what they were saying but if they switched languages like the waitress did, wouldn't be a problem.
In fact, there are plenty of people I deal with regularly that have such broken English that it makes more sense to just rely on the typical social script and I've no problem with that.
Quote from: garbon on August 13, 2013, 09:03:26 AM
I could see it if you didn't know English but you do, so it isn't as though it is making your life more difficult. At least in my scenario there would be a little difficulty as I wouldn't know what they were saying but if they switched languages like the waitress did, wouldn't be a problem.
In fact, there are plenty of people I deal with regularly that have such broken English that it makes more sense to just rely on the typical social script and I've no problem with that.
Well, I find it abnormal that people who spent their entire lives in Quebec, especially those whose family was here for more than one generation not to speak a word of french. I find it distasteful from these people and a clear sign of disrespect.
They live here, in a place where the majority speaks french, yet they treat us like they are colonial masters.
I can understand recent immigrants, but people born&raised in Quebec refusing to learn the damn language? You think a francophone could survive outside of Quebec without knowing english? How about in New York? Could I live my life in French, teach only French to my kids&grandkids and expect that we all have a prosperous life? It didn't seem to work that well before, but who knows...
Quote from: viper37 on August 13, 2013, 09:05:54 PM
Well, I find it abnormal that people who spent their entire lives in Quebec, especially those whose family was here for more than one generation not to speak a word of french. I find it distasteful from these people and a clear sign of disrespect.
:hmm:
Isn't this the result of the bilingualism laws Quebec has insisted on though? Or don't they apply to Quebec?
I agree it's rude but isn't bilingualism in signage and government services etc. the reason they can spend their entire lives in Quebec while not speaking Quebecois French?
Viper's always trying to draw this weird equivalence between French and English.
Quote from: viper37 on August 13, 2013, 09:05:54 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 13, 2013, 09:03:26 AM
I could see it if you didn't know English but you do, so it isn't as though it is making your life more difficult. At least in my scenario there would be a little difficulty as I wouldn't know what they were saying but if they switched languages like the waitress did, wouldn't be a problem.
In fact, there are plenty of people I deal with regularly that have such broken English that it makes more sense to just rely on the typical social script and I've no problem with that.
Well, I find it abnormal that people who spent their entire lives in Quebec, especially those whose family was here for more than one generation not to speak a word of french. I find it distasteful from these people and a clear sign of disrespect.
They live here, in a place where the majority speaks french, yet they treat us like they are colonial masters.
I can understand recent immigrants, but people born&raised in Quebec refusing to learn the damn language? You think a francophone could survive outside of Quebec without knowing english? How about in New York? Could I live my life in French, teach only French to my kids&grandkids and expect that we all have a prosperous life? It didn't seem to work that well before, but who knows...
Actually there are people in the US who live their lives barely speaking any English. Now I personally feel sad for them as they can't ever fully participate in wider society without English but I don't get angry that they've chosen to not learn English. Other than themselves (and even this is questionable as their goals and motivations in life might not match my own), who are they harming?
I know I'm not offended that a goodly chunk of Holmes county ohio doesn't speak the English at home.
I agree with the Grab On, but viper's sentiment is something you hear a lot from Yuros.
When you live in the 19th century it is important that as many people as possible speak your language so that you have the maximum number of soldiers when the Great War arrives.
Viper, I thought of you today when I accidentally called the front desk at our Montreal office. I didn't get anxious when they answered with bonjour. Similarly, the number to call to bypass the front desk (i.e. to dial an extension directly) has a recording of some woman speaking in french with what I presume is a message telling me that if I know the extension of the party I wish to contact that I should dial it now and press pound. Again, not really an issue though it is the case that either way for me to contact someone in our Canadian office, I have to hear French.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 14, 2013, 02:15:12 PM
I agree with the Grab On, but viper's sentiment is something you hear a lot from Yuros.
I remember when I first heard about institutions that determine what are and are not words in their respective languages. I was very confused by the notion.
Quote from: garbon on August 14, 2013, 09:21:43 AM
Actually there are people in the US who live their lives barely speaking any English.
5% of all US citizens do not speak english at all, they are mostly recent immigrants, and no state is forced to provide them with education and services in their languages.
QuoteOther than themselves (and even this is questionable as their goals and motivations in life might not match my own), who are they harming?
it's a question of attitude. I consider it rude for an english person to refuse to learn French while living in Quebec. It's a reminder that they still think they are our colonial masters. It is a distaful behavior. That's why I'm not giving them any chance. I don't mind tourists, I don't expect people to learn every language of every country they visit. But people established here for more than one generation? No way I'm using english with them in Montreal.
Quote from: garbon on August 14, 2013, 06:22:30 PM
Viper, I thought of you today when I accidentally called the front desk at our Montreal office. I didn't get anxious when they answered with bonjour. Similarly, the number to call to bypass the front desk (i.e. to dial an extension directly) has a recording of some woman speaking in french with what I presume is a message telling me that if I know the extension of the party I wish to contact that I should dial it now and press pound. Again, not really an issue though it is the case that either way for me to contact someone in our Canadian office, I have to hear French.
But it's Montreal, not Houston. I often had more chances of finding a franco in California than in Toronto. Weird.
It sure does bother some people in the US though:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English-only_movement#The_modern_English-only_movement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English-only_movement#The_modern_English-only_movement)
In a country where 95% of people speak the de facto official language.
Maybe if 95% of Canadians spoke french, we wouldn't even have language laws in Quebec. Maybe it wouldn't bother anyone if the odd person spoke only english in Montreal.
Quote from: viper37 on August 14, 2013, 09:59:34 PM
5% of all US citizens do not speak english at all, they are mostly recent immigrants, and no state is forced to provide them with education and services in their languages.
Ok? Not sure of your point given that you live in a country with two official languages. Also, there are varying degrees of proficiency. My friend's Vietnamese mother spoke a few phrases sure but that was it.
Quote from: viper37 on August 14, 2013, 09:59:34 PM
it's a question of attitude. I consider it rude for an english person to refuse to learn French while living in Quebec. It's a reminder that they still think they are our colonial masters. It is a distaful behavior. That's why I'm not giving them any chance. I don't mind tourists, I don't expect people to learn every language of every country they visit. But people established here for more than one generation? No way I'm using english with them in Montreal.
Really you think that an average, everyday person is thinking about whether or not they are a colonial master? :blink:
Besides, what if they are just really bad at languages? Doesn't it make sense to speak to the one language that will carry them further around the world?
Quote from: viper37 on August 14, 2013, 10:08:52 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 14, 2013, 06:22:30 PM
Viper, I thought of you today when I accidentally called the front desk at our Montreal office. I didn't get anxious when they answered with bonjour. Similarly, the number to call to bypass the front desk (i.e. to dial an extension directly) has a recording of some woman speaking in french with what I presume is a message telling me that if I know the extension of the party I wish to contact that I should dial it now and press pound. Again, not really an issue though it is the case that either way for me to contact someone in our Canadian office, I have to hear French.
But it's Montreal, not Houston. I often had more chances of finding a franco in California than in Toronto. Weird.
So? I think it could be decently argued that as I work at a company with offices in Montreal, NYC, London, Shanghai, Johannesburg and Kuala Lumpur that employees shouldn't be forced to listen to a language other than English when they want to call their colleagues - given that is the one language that all of us have in common.
Note I also think that would be a ridiculous position to take. ;)
Quote from: viper37 on August 14, 2013, 10:09:54 PM
It sure does bother some people in the US though:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English-only_movement#The_modern_English-only_movement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English-only_movement#The_modern_English-only_movement)
In a country where 95% of people speak the de facto official language.
So your take is that one should get offended over small things because we have bigots in this country that get offended over small things?
Quote from: viper37 on August 14, 2013, 10:09:54 PM
Maybe if 95% of Canadians spoke french, we wouldn't even have language laws in Quebec. Maybe it wouldn't bother anyone if the odd person spoke only english in Montreal.
But why would they? What's the utility value of speaking French, in Canada, outside of Quebec* if you aren't dealing regularly with French speakers?
Sidebar but what do you think about the idea that we should make people learn Spanish around the US? I took a quick look at wiki and if I take the proportion of people who speak Spanish in the US (including those who learned it as a foreign language or it is their 2nd language) out of total pop - roughly 16% of people speak Spanish (looks like ~12% as primary language). In Canada, roughly 23% of people report French as their main language. Now US % is clearly smaller but is it an affront if people don't learn English who live in Southwestern states? How about the US as a whole?
*added in caveat of outside of Quebec as apparently there is utility value in not having predominantly French speakers pissed at you if you don't learn French and you live in Quebec. :P
Quote from: viper37 on August 14, 2013, 09:59:34 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 14, 2013, 09:21:43 AM
Actually there are people in the US who live their lives barely speaking any English.
5% of all US citizens do not speak english at all, they are mostly recent immigrants, and no state is forced to provide them with education and services in their languages.
QuoteOther than themselves (and even this is questionable as their goals and motivations in life might not match my own), who are they harming?
it's a question of attitude. I consider it rude for an english person to refuse to learn French while living in Quebec. It's a reminder that they still think they are our colonial masters. It is a distaful behavior. That's why I'm not giving them any chance. I don't mind tourists, I don't expect people to learn every language of every country they visit. But people established here for more than one generation? No way I'm using english with them in Montreal.
Have you ever thought about seeing a doctor about this? In the US this is called "paranoia".
What's rude is living in Canada for generations, but not learning and exclusively using English.
Quote from: garbon on August 14, 2013, 10:14:07 PM
Ok? Not sure of your point given that you live in a country with two official languages. Also, there are varying degrees of proficiency. My friend's Vietnamese mother spoke a few phrases sure but that was it.
See Neil's answer :)
Quote
Really you think that an average, everyday person is thinking about whether or not they are a colonial master? :blink:
Again, see Neil's answer. Canada is a bilingual country on paper, not in fact. Neil might be joking, but it's the prevalent attitude among english canadians. Most don't say it of course, but you just have to look at the reactions we get whenever someone ask for his rights to receive services in french.
Quote
Besides, what if they are just really bad at languages? Doesn't it make sense to speak to the one language that will carry them further around the world?
Oh come on. 85% of Canadians are bad at languages? You live in on island where the majority speaks French, yet you're so bad at languages that you are never able to learn the language of the majority?
English Canadians living in Quebec have to make a choice to not learn French, and many still do. That's why many young english-montrealers chose to leave for Toronto. You'll hear people boasting about their proficiency in some local african dialect dur to their travel, yet, learning french never crossed their mind. This is the mantality of many anglo-Quebecers. It's just no use to learn the language of the majority, they will adapt.
It's not a conscious decision to be rude and whine all the time that you're human rights aren't respected (if only they knew what it meant), but it's a prevalent attitude in a social group.
Just like racism in the southern US. Many people don't make a conscious choice of being distrutful of blacks (and vice-versa), but generations of social conditioning has lead to this.
Quote from: garbon on August 14, 2013, 10:17:58 PM
So? I think it could be decently argued that as I work at a company with offices in Montreal, NYC, London, Shanghai, Johannesburg and Kuala Lumpur that employees shouldn't be forced to listen to a language other than English when they want to call their colleagues - given that is the one language that all of us have in common.
Do you think a Quebec based company like Bombardier or Couche-Tard could succesfully impose french as a working language in their canadian and american offices?
Quote
Note I also think that would be a ridiculous position to take. ;)
You expect someone to speak to you in english, though. And I have no problem with that. I'm not a zealot, I don't care if the english message is first or second. However, calling in Montreal, I expect to have a french message or french speaking receptionist.
If I sit in a restaurant in Montreal downtown, I expect to have a french or bilingual menu, not argue with the waitress to get one. And I would expect the basic courtesy of the hostess speaking french to me first, unless I'm with a bunch of anglos.
Quote from: garbon on August 14, 2013, 10:27:56 PM
So your take is that one should get offended over small things because we have bigots in this country that get offended over small things?
<sigh>. No.
[quote author]
But why would they? What's the utility value of speaking French, in Canada, outside of Quebec* if you aren't dealing regularly with French speakers?[/quote]
Is Canada a bilingual country or not? The answer is yes. From there, it should only be logical that we learn both official languages everywhere, and that also means much better english education in Quebec.
We know that learning more than one language makes you smarter[/ul].
So why not learn the other official language of the country you're supposedly so attached to? Especially if you live in Quebec?
(http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/opinion/sunday/the-benefits-of-bilingualism.html?_r=0)
Quote
Sidebar but what do you think about the idea that we should make people learn Spanish around the US? I took a quick look at wiki and if I take the proportion of people who speak Spanish in the US (including those who learned it as a foreign language or it is their 2nd language) out of total pop - roughly 16% of people speak Spanish (looks like ~12% as primary language). In Canada, roughly 23% of people report French as their main language. Now US % is clearly smaller but is it an affront if people don't learn English who live in Southwestern states? How about the US as a whole? (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/opinion/sunday/the-benefits-of-bilingualism.html?_r=0)
I think the States should teach spanish and french, and so should we. Of course, for States like Texas, Spanish is way, way more useful than French. But it could be up to the States themselves, so long as they teach at least 2 languages. Besides, it's not like the spanyards were your former colonial masters and regard you as inferior. ;)
(http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/opinion/sunday/the-benefits-of-bilingualism.html?_r=0)
Quote
*added in caveat of outside of Quebec as apparently there is utility value in not having predominantly French speakers pissed at you if you don't learn French and you live in Quebec. :P
(http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/opinion/sunday/the-benefits-of-bilingualism.html?_r=0)
Well, somedays, I feel it's easier to find French speakers in Vermont&Maine than in downtown Montreal :glare: (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/opinion/sunday/the-benefits-of-bilingualism.html?_r=0)
You think that the United States should teach French to everybody? Why? I mean, I can understand why you might think that'd be a good idea in Canada, but the US?
Quote from: viper37 on August 15, 2013, 10:41:29 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 14, 2013, 10:17:58 PM
So? I think it could be decently argued that as I work at a company with offices in Montreal, NYC, London, Shanghai, Johannesburg and Kuala Lumpur that employees shouldn't be forced to listen to a language other than English when they want to call their colleagues - given that is the one language that all of us have in common.
Do you think a Quebec based company like Bombardier or Couche-Tard could succesfully impose french as a working language in their canadian and american offices?
Quote
Note I also think that would be a ridiculous position to take. ;)
You expect someone to speak to you in english, though. And I have no problem with that. I'm not a zealot, I don't care if the english message is first or second. However, calling in Montreal, I expect to have a french message or french speaking receptionist.
If I sit in a restaurant in Montreal downtown, I expect to have a french or bilingual menu, not argue with the waitress to get one. And I would expect the basic courtesy of the hostess speaking french to me first, unless I'm with a bunch of anglos.
I don't understand why the first words are such a problem. How outrage will you be in the 20 years when it's going to be a word neither in french or english that greet you?
Being upset over the language someone else speaks is ridiculous period.
Quote from: Neil on August 15, 2013, 11:04:40 AM
Why?
Because they need civilization too. Just because they are filthy good to nothing barbarians, doesn't mean they can't bask in the benevolent light of evolved bilingual civilizations.
No, seriously, learning other languages is good for the mind, so either French or Spanish. Spanish isn't much use in norther states, French isn't much use in southern states, so, the states should simply decide what feels good to them. I think America would benefit a lot from having a multilingual atheist population of they replace church school with language school ;)
Quote from: Maximus on August 15, 2013, 11:14:13 AM
Being upset over the language someone else speaks is ridiculous period.
tell that to your fellow canadians :) They are upset when the Prime minister speaks french and they are apparently upset when a business card has french writings on it.
Quote from: viper37 on August 15, 2013, 12:33:25 PM
tell that to your fellow canadians :) They are upset when the Prime minister speaks french and they are apparently upset when a business card has french writings on it.
I doubt it. I haven't seen any evidence of Canadians outside of Quebec caring about the language issue in large numbers.
Quote from: viper37 on August 15, 2013, 12:33:25 PM
Quote from: Maximus on August 15, 2013, 11:14:13 AM
Being upset over the language someone else speaks is ridiculous period.
tell that to your fellow canadians :) They are upset when the Prime minister speaks french and they are apparently upset when a business card has french writings on it.
You have been drinking deeply of the separatist cool aid I see.
You are the one that is upset about what is or not on a card. Your province is the one that regulates what people can and cannot say even in the private sphere of business.
Quote from: viper37 on August 15, 2013, 12:32:34 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 15, 2013, 11:04:40 AM
Why?
Because they need civilization too. Just because they are filthy good to nothing barbarians, doesn't mean they can't bask in the benevolent light of evolved bilingual civilizations.
No, seriously, learning other languages is good for the mind, so either French or Spanish. Spanish isn't much use in norther states, French isn't much use in southern states, so, the states should simply decide what feels good to them. I think America would benefit a lot from having a multilingual atheist population of they replace church school with language school ;)
Lots of things are good for the mind, but I don't think the government should mandate the use of Sudoku. The purpose of language is to communicate, and having more than one language is terrible. That's been the whole point of the pressure to wipe out all the other languages over the last few generations. And why do you think that French would be of any use in any state? I would think that Spanish would have more utility anywhere in the US. The teaching of French in American schools is the product of the remains of the 1800s, when people were still alive who remember the days when French was the common tongue of diplomacy and literature.
Quote from: viper37 on August 15, 2013, 10:41:29 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 14, 2013, 10:17:58 PM
So? I think it could be decently argued that as I work at a company with offices in Montreal, NYC, London, Shanghai, Johannesburg and Kuala Lumpur that employees shouldn't be forced to listen to a language other than English when they want to call their colleagues - given that is the one language that all of us have in common.
Do you think a Quebec based company like Bombardier or Couche-Tard could succesfully impose french as a working language in their canadian and american offices?
They could probably try but they'd run into hiring issues as most of the applicant pool won't be fluent in French.
Viper, your perception of what upsets anglophone Canadians, what they care about, and how they feel about Quebec is significantly different from mine.
Yes, there are anti-Quebec trolls, but you seem to pay them way more attention and ascribe way more significance to them than most anglophones do.
Quote from: Jacob on August 15, 2013, 01:57:03 PM
Viper, your perception of what upsets anglophone Canadians, what they care about, and how they feel about Quebec is significantly different from mine.
Yes, there are anti-Quebec trolls, but you seem to pay them way more attention and ascribe way more significance to them than most anglophones do.
Personally, I base my opinions on what everyone outside Ontario thinks on any subject based on what the assholes in Youtube comments have to say. :)
It's a scary world out there ... :hmm:
Quote from: Malthus on August 15, 2013, 02:18:19 PM
Personally, I base my opinions on what everyone outside Ontario thinks on any subject based on what the assholes in Youtube comments have to say. :)
It's a scary world out there ... :hmm:
Shuddup Jew I m goin to r4pe you
Quote from: Jacob on August 15, 2013, 01:57:03 PM
Yes, there are anti-Quebec trolls, but you seem to pay them way more attention and ascribe way more significance to them than most anglophones do.
I don't pay much attention to anti-english trolls either, they seem to be a minority in Quebec. Yet, they do get significant attention in Canada's medias.
Quote from: Valmy on August 15, 2013, 02:48:23 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 15, 2013, 02:18:19 PM
Personally, I base my opinions on what everyone outside Ontario thinks on any subject based on what the assholes in Youtube comments have to say. :)
It's a scary world out there ... :hmm:
Shuddup Jew I m goin to r4pe you
This is incredibly offensive.
Quote from: Neil on August 15, 2013, 12:50:56 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 15, 2013, 12:32:34 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 15, 2013, 11:04:40 AM
Why?
Because they need civilization too. Just because they are filthy good to nothing barbarians, doesn't mean they can't bask in the benevolent light of evolved bilingual civilizations.
No, seriously, learning other languages is good for the mind, so either French or Spanish. Spanish isn't much use in norther states, French isn't much use in southern states, so, the states should simply decide what feels good to them. I think America would benefit a lot from having a multilingual atheist population of they replace church school with language school ;)
Lots of things are good for the mind, but I don't think the government should mandate the use of Sudoku. The purpose of language is to communicate, and having more than one language is terrible. That's been the whole point of the pressure to wipe out all the other languages over the last few generations. And why do you think that French would be of any use in any state? I would think that Spanish would have more utility anywhere in the US. The teaching of French in American schools is the product of the remains of the 1800s, when people were still alive who remember the days when French was the common tongue of diplomacy and literature.
As I said, it depends on the state. Vermont seems to find an interest in offering bilingual services in many places, even restaurants, airports and hotels. Isn't it strange that you get expelled from an Air Canada aircraft for asking the company to respect its rules and provide you with french services while a country who owes nothing to French Canadian feels the need to teach french in schools and encourage employers to hire bilingual staff?
Besides, all I said it it's good to learn a second language. French is still widely spoken in Africa, Europe (France, Belgium, Switzerland) and some part of the carribeans (also Louisiana, even if I can't understand them), so it has its uses, eventually, in commerce or tourism. You never know where you might end up in the future.
Of course Spanish is very useful too, so ideally, everyone in NA would learn the three official languages of NAFTA. I sure wished I had time to learn Spanish. German, Dutch and Portuguese are nice too, but not widely spoken outside of Europe.
Quote from: viper37 on August 15, 2013, 03:13:56 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 15, 2013, 01:57:03 PM
Yes, there are anti-Quebec trolls, but you seem to pay them way more attention and ascribe way more significance to them than most anglophones do.
I don't pay much attention to anti-english trolls either, they seem to be a minority in Quebec. Yet, they do get significant attention in Canada's medias.
Do you pay attention to yourself?
Quote from: The Brain on August 15, 2013, 03:16:09 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 15, 2013, 02:48:23 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 15, 2013, 02:18:19 PM
Personally, I base my opinions on what everyone outside Ontario thinks on any subject based on what the assholes in Youtube comments have to say. :)
It's a scary world out there ... :hmm:
Shuddup Jew I m goin to r4pe you
This is incredibly offensive.
U dont like freedom of speech typical liberal
Quote from: Valmy on August 15, 2013, 03:22:40 PM
Quote from: The Brain on August 15, 2013, 03:16:09 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 15, 2013, 02:48:23 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 15, 2013, 02:18:19 PM
Personally, I base my opinions on what everyone outside Ontario thinks on any subject based on what the assholes in Youtube comments have to say. :)
It's a scary world out there ... :hmm:
Shuddup Jew I m goin to r4pe you
This is incredibly offensive.
U dont like freedom of speech typical liberal
I like spelling and grammar.
Quote from: viper37 on August 15, 2013, 03:18:10 PM
As I said, it depends on the state. Vermont seems to find an interest in offering bilingual services in many places, even restaurants, airports and hotels. Isn't it strange that you get expelled from an Air Canada aircraft for asking the company to respect its rules and provide you with french services while a country who owes nothing to French Canadian feels the need to teach french in schools and encourage employers to hire bilingual staff?
Could that be the result of proximity and the fact that it is good on a cost-benefit ratio for businesses in Vermont? Seems like the same could hardly be said for the rest of Canada.
Quote from: Maximus on August 15, 2013, 03:19:01 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 15, 2013, 03:13:56 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 15, 2013, 01:57:03 PM
Yes, there are anti-Quebec trolls, but you seem to pay them way more attention and ascribe way more significance to them than most anglophones do.
I don't pay much attention to anti-english trolls either, they seem to be a minority in Quebec. Yet, they do get significant attention in Canada's medias.
Do you pay attention to yourself?
I'm not anti-english. I don't hate inferior beings :P
What I'm refering to, is people who don't want english to be taught at school, or at a very minimal level for fear of losing our identity. People who think everything english is bad, people who think Quebec tv is the best tv in the world.
There's a limit to everything. Mine is I simply don't want Quebec defaced. I don't want Quebec to be a small Ontario or a Big New Brunswick with a folkloric french population. It's the point I'm trying to get across, wich none of you seems to be able to understand.
If Quebec editorialists were to write about Israel and its people the same way Canadian medias are writing about Quebec and its people, we would be branded as anti-semetic terrorist lovers. Oh wait, they already do that :)
Quote from: viper37 on August 15, 2013, 03:30:29 PM
There's a limit to everything. Mine is I simply don't want Quebec defaced. I don't want Quebec to be a small Ontario or a Big New Brunswick with a folkloric french population. It's the point I'm trying to get across, wich none of you seems to be able to understand.
But here is what I don't understand. If the people who are living in Quebec didn't want to / didn't learn French, why is that a problem? Why should people support artificially freezing Quebec's linguistic customs in time?
Quote from: garbon on August 15, 2013, 03:25:57 PM
Could that be the result of proximity and the fact that it is good on a cost-benefit ratio for businesses in Vermont? Seems like the same could hardly be said for the rest of Canada.
Of course it is.
In Canada, we're officially a bilingual country. Many Canadians seems to derive pride in this. But in practice, it's far from the case. As I said, I don't mind Canadians outside of Quebec not learning french. I think they should, I think it'd be great. But they don't want to, so it's up to them.
However, if there's a law about official bilinguism in this country, I'll ask for it to be respected. Nor circumvented or ignored. If Canadians feel it's a stupid law, they are the majority, they can easily repeal the law. The Reform Party was opposed to bilinguism and came close to power a few times.
But until then, I feel it's justified to ask an officially bilingual country to act as such. And people living in a place where french is the majority should learn the language. There's no way I'd insist on using french if I were in New York, that ain't the language of the majority. That would be rude of me to insist others adapt to me.
Quote from: viper37 on August 15, 2013, 03:36:49 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 15, 2013, 03:25:57 PM
Could that be the result of proximity and the fact that it is good on a cost-benefit ratio for businesses in Vermont? Seems like the same could hardly be said for the rest of Canada.
Of course it is.
In Canada, we're officially a bilingual country. Many Canadians seems to derive pride in this. But in practice, it's far from the case. As I said, I don't mind Canadians outside of Quebec not learning french. I think they should, I think it'd be great. But they don't want to, so it's up to them.
However, if there's a law about official bilinguism in this country, I'll ask for it to be respected. Nor circumvented or ignored. If Canadians feel it's a stupid law, they are the majority, they can easily repeal the law. The Reform Party was opposed to bilinguism and came close to power a few times.
But until then, I feel it's justified to ask an officially bilingual country to act as such. And people living in a place where french is the majority should learn the language. There's no way I'd insist on using french if I were in New York, that ain't the language of the majority. That would be rude of me to insist others adapt to me.
So you think the best way to support the idea that Canada is officially a bilingual country is by forcing people in Quebec to learn French? How does that work exactly?
Quote from: garbon on August 15, 2013, 03:36:41 PM
But here is what I don't understand. If the people who are living in Quebec didn't want to / didn't learn French, why is that a problem?
Because we have to provide them for services in english? Because they constantly want cities to be declared bilingual* even if they are a tiny minority in the city? Because they complain everytime ask for being spoken to in French? Because they call "human rights violation" the fact that they can't have a big english only sign on their streets?
If everywhere you go in Montreal, it looks like Fredericton, Toronto or Boston, where's the appeal to Montreal? It's nothing but a shell of its past, i.e. there's no appeal to the city, no specific interests for tourism when you can see the same thing everywhere in the continent.
Quote
Why should people support artificially freezing Quebec's linguistic customs in time?
Why should I let them deface my nation? Why should I let them keep their lazyness? Why should I pay for 2 hospitals because they refuse to mix with french people?
I don't mind providing basic education in french, and financing a part of university education like everyone else. But I disagree that they should get favorable treatment just because they don't want to learn the language of the majority in this province. They are not threatened minority, far from it. We could have had one big super hospital mainly aimed at reasearch. One director, one of each staff and one building 1.5x the size of one of the hospitals. But we have twice of everything, just beside one another. Because english don't mix with French. They build fences around their community to isolate from the rif-raff of the french neighbourhoods.
Not learning the language is just a symbol, but a powerful one of their general attitude.
*Bilinguism for Anglo-Quebecers means everything in english, maybe in french if you insist enough. It's just like the Federal government, it means english everywhere there's on anglophone, but french only where numbers justifies it.
Quote from: garbon on August 15, 2013, 03:36:41 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 15, 2013, 03:30:29 PM
There's a limit to everything. Mine is I simply don't want Quebec defaced. I don't want Quebec to be a small Ontario or a Big New Brunswick with a folkloric french population. It's the point I'm trying to get across, wich none of you seems to be able to understand.
But here is what I don't understand. If the people who are living in Quebec didn't want to / didn't learn French, why is that a problem? Why should people support artificially freezing Quebec's linguistic customs in time?
Oh oh. Now you've done it. :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on August 15, 2013, 03:48:57 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 15, 2013, 03:36:41 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 15, 2013, 03:30:29 PM
There's a limit to everything. Mine is I simply don't want Quebec defaced. I don't want Quebec to be a small Ontario or a Big New Brunswick with a folkloric french population. It's the point I'm trying to get across, wich none of you seems to be able to understand.
But here is what I don't understand. If the people who are living in Quebec didn't want to / didn't learn French, why is that a problem? Why should people support artificially freezing Quebec's linguistic customs in time?
Oh oh. Now you've done it. :lol:
Well that's what it seems like it comes down to. You wouldn't need laws forcing people to speak a language if they just you know, wanted to do it of their own accord.
Now to be fair, I can't see wanting to live in Quebec or any place where the majority language was not English and not wanting to learn that language.
Quote from: viper37 on August 15, 2013, 03:47:44 PM
Because we have to provide them for services in english? Because they constantly want cities to be declared bilingual* even if they are a tiny minority in the city? Because they complain everytime ask for being spoken to in French? Because they call "human rights violation" the fact that they can't have a big english only sign on their streets?
I'll agree that does sound obnoxious. It also seems like a consequence of having two official languages.
Quote from: viper37 on August 15, 2013, 03:47:44 PM
If everywhere you go in Montreal, it looks like Fredericton, Toronto or Boston, where's the appeal to Montreal? It's nothing but a shell of its past, i.e. there's no appeal to the city, no specific interests for tourism when you can see the same thing everywhere in the continent.
I think you've used this one before. I'm not convinced that Montreal is unappealing if people aren't speaking French. After all, I keep visiting Montreal and the amount of French I know is very little (though increasing).
Quote from: viper37 on August 15, 2013, 03:47:44 PMWhy should I let them deface my nation? Why should I let them keep their lazyness? Why should I pay for 2 hospitals because they refuse to mix with french people?
I don't really know what that first one means. States change over time with demographic shifts. That's not defacing something. Well apart from what you list about paying for extra services, their "laziness" for the most part doesn't seem harmful. Similar to what I said about people in the US that live their whole lives barely speaking English. Doesn't bother me but then I also don't see someone refusing to speak English as a personal insult.
Quote from: garbon on August 15, 2013, 03:39:16 PM
So you think the best way to support the idea that Canada is officially a bilingual country is by forcing people in Quebec to learn French? How does that work exactly?
Not forced. You can't force anything. But you can lightly coerce them. Make it harder to keep a unilingual lifestyle. Show the merits of speaking french in Quebec.
Enforce french as language of work for medium-big companies. Not use english because one person out of 10 doesn't want to speak French. They learn, or they work elsewhere.
Not require english profiency for low level work not in contact with tourists (mechanic, store clerk, etc).
Require all customer service to be either exclusively in french or bilingual.
Offer french immersion classes for you anglophones.
French public school mandatory for kids whose parents did not attend english schools in Canada or USA (no Commonwealth bullshit). English private schools still available to those willing to pay.
Have history lessons focus on anglo-french relationships post 1763 so that kids might understand some of the resentment toward unilingual anglophones.
Lots of small measures, nothing dramatic. Nothing most occidental countries in the world don't already do. Looking at the California constitution, I found this:
"English is the official language of the State of California." It seems ok for California to define its official language, but it's a racist act in Quebec to have french as our official language yet provide all kind of services in english? Anglos are weird... ;)
Quote from: garbon on August 15, 2013, 03:58:58 PM
I think you've used this one before. I'm not convinced that Montreal is unappealing if people aren't speaking French. After all, I keep visiting Montreal and the amount of French I know is very little (though increasing).
I believe it's not about knowing french, but about seeing something different. If it was the same as New York, if you felt walking on Ste-Catherine street was the same as walking the 54th of New York would you still come as often? If people look the same, speak the same, if buildings&streets start to look alike... I fear many people will just skip over.
Quote
I don't really know what that first one means. States change over time with demographic shifts. That's not defacing something.
It is to me. I like my culture. It will evolve, of course. It will change. That doesn't mean I want it destroyed.
Quote
Doesn't bother me but then I also don't see someone refusing to speak English as a personal insult.
as I said, it's the whole Neil-ism attitude.
Quote from: garbon on August 15, 2013, 03:53:42 PM
Well that's what it seems like it comes down to. You wouldn't need laws forcing people to speak a language if they just you know, wanted to do it of their own accord.
If you ignore the historical fact, of course it makes sense.
If we let the anglos have their way, it'll be back to the 40s and 50s all again. Now why would I want that? Why should I surrender without a fight?
Gotta say I'm kinda sympathetic to viper's side on this. Given the long history of the French in North America, it's nice to see a cocoon of Frenchiness still thriving, and it would be a shame to see it fade away.
Quote from: viper37 on August 15, 2013, 04:06:16 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 15, 2013, 03:39:16 PM
So you think the best way to support the idea that Canada is officially a bilingual country is by forcing people in Quebec to learn French? How does that work exactly?
Not forced. You can't force anything. But you can lightly coerce them. Make it harder to keep a unilingual lifestyle. Show the merits of speaking french in Quebec.
Enforce french as language of work for medium-big companies. Not use english because one person out of 10 doesn't want to speak French. They learn, or they work elsewhere.
Not require english profiency for low level work not in contact with tourists (mechanic, store clerk, etc).
Require all customer service to be either exclusively in french or bilingual.
Offer french immersion classes for you anglophones.
French public school mandatory for kids whose parents did not attend english schools in Canada or USA (no Commonwealth bullshit). English private schools still available to those willing to pay.
Have history lessons focus on anglo-french relationships post 1763 so that kids might understand some of the resentment toward unilingual anglophones.
Lots of small measures, nothing dramatic. Nothing most occidental countries in the world don't already do. Looking at the California constitution, I found this: "English is the official language of the State of California." It seems ok for California to define its official language, but it's a racist act in Quebec to have french as our official language yet provide all kind of services in english? Anglos are weird... ;)
What is weird, is that the country has *two* official languages, yet Quebec insists on having *one* - despite a large anglophone minority. No other province currently employs "light coercion" to force anyone to speak any language. On the contrary, the rest of the country is supposed to be officially bilingual.
You see the imbalance most in attempting to access government services. In Ontario, everything is in French *and* English. In Quebec, only the most limited stuff is in English. You can't do anything without reading French.
Example, Ontario, Ministry of Health:
http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/public/programs/flhs/flsa.aspx
QuoteThe right to receive services in French: French-language services are not limited to correspondence, telephone or translation procedures. The needs of the French-speaking population are taken into account in the development and implementation of programs, policies and procedures. Furthermore, services received in French must be equivalent to those offered in English, offered at the same time, and of the same quality.
Compare with the same ministry policy, Quebec Ministry of Health:
http://www.gouv.qc.ca/portail/quebec/pgs/commun/informationsutiles/linguistique/?lang=en
QuoteLinguistic Policy
The gouvernement du Québec, in order to foster application of the Charter of the French Language, which makes French the official language of Québec, and provide proper leadership in this respect, has established a policy aimed at promoting the use and quality of French.
In accordance with the Politique gouvernementale relative à l'emploi et à la qualité de la langue française dans l'Administration (policy on the use and quality of French within the government) and as a general rule, gouvernement du Québec texts, documents and communications, including those transmitted electronically, are drafted and published exclusively in French.
Why anglophones in Quebec are "weird" for wanting in Quebec the same language rights francophone minorities enjoy in (say) Ontario is beyond my understanding.
Quote from: viper37 on August 15, 2013, 04:18:17 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 15, 2013, 03:53:42 PM
Well that's what it seems like it comes down to. You wouldn't need laws forcing people to speak a language if they just you know, wanted to do it of their own accord.
If you ignore the historical fact, of course it makes sense.
If we let the anglos have their way, it'll be back to the 40s and 50s all again. Now why would I want that? Why should I surrender without a fight?
Sure that's fair enough but are you saying that the people today who don't learn french are acting on the same, for lack of a better term, racist basis?
Quote from: derspiess on August 15, 2013, 04:18:33 PM
Gotta say I'm kinda sympathetic to viper's side on this. Given the long history of the French in North America, it's nice to see a cocoon of Frenchiness still thriving, and it would be a shame to see it fade away.
Oh I agree that the French language shouldn't disappear unless of course people not interested in speaking it. I don't like the idea of coercing people into a language. Seems like that would just build resentment and actual conspiracies. ;)
Quote from: viper37 on August 15, 2013, 04:06:16 PM
Lots of small measures, nothing dramatic. Nothing most occidental countries in the world don't already do. Looking at the California constitution, I found this: "English is the official language of the State of California." It seems ok for California to define its official language, but it's a racist act in Quebec to have french as our official language yet provide all kind of services in english? Anglos are weird... ;)
I don't support that. Also, I think California is a poor choice as despite it officially only having one language, many, many government services are available in a wide variety of languages.
Quote from: viper37 on August 15, 2013, 03:13:56 PMI don't pay much attention to anti-english trolls either, they seem to be a minority in Quebec. Yet, they do get significant attention in Canada's medias.
I almost never hear about anti-English stuff going on in Quebec. Occasionally we hear about embarrassments like the no-turban soccer decision, but that's it.
The most virulent anti-Anglo attitude I come across is from you and grallon here on languish.
Quote from: garbon on August 15, 2013, 04:33:35 PM
I don't support that. Also, I think California is a poor choice as despite it officially only having one language, many, many government services are available in a wide variety of languages.
I couldn't find a french public school using Google. Private schools, sure.
A search for spanish public schools finds a newspiece by Fox complaining it costs too much. But maybe I should harve
Hospitals are tricky. I should search in spanish, maybe i'd find a community hospital where the staff is 100% spanish speaking and the hospital is state funded in part?
I searched for Texas, but there does not seem to public education in Spanish. This article (http://www.dallasnews.com/news/education/headlines/20130503-explosive-growth-of-hispanics-in-texas-bring-dramatic-changes-to-schools.ece)talks of the problems with english education to non english speakers and doesn't mention spanish only schools. It doesn't mention spanish speaking people building fences to protect their neighborhood from english speakers either ;)
Quote from: Jacob on August 15, 2013, 05:12:00 PM
The most virulent anti-Anglo attitude I come across is from you and grallon here on languish.
See?
Calling Quebec people racists & nazi-like = fair criticism of Quebec's policy (CC's quote).
Grallon and me criticising canadian policies = virulent anti-Anglo attitude.
No bias here my friend...
Quote from: viper37 on August 15, 2013, 05:41:20 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 15, 2013, 05:12:00 PM
The most virulent anti-Anglo attitude I come across is from you and grallon here on languish.
See?
Calling Quebec people racists & nazi-like = fair criticism of Quebec's policy (CC's quote).
Grallon and me criticising canadian policies = virulent anti-Anglo attitude.
No bias here my friend...
:lol:
Seriously Viper, you completely misconstrued my point.
Quote from: viper37 on August 15, 2013, 05:39:15 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 15, 2013, 04:33:35 PM
I don't support that. Also, I think California is a poor choice as despite it officially only having one language, many, many government services are available in a wide variety of languages.
I couldn't find a french public school using Google. Private schools, sure.
A search for spanish public schools finds a newspiece by Fox complaining it costs too much. But maybe I should harve
Hospitals are tricky. I should search in spanish, maybe i'd find a community hospital where the staff is 100% spanish speaking and the hospital is state funded in part?
I don't think a hospital specifically for one language group should be required though, so not sure what the point is there?
Quote from: viper37 on August 15, 2013, 05:39:15 PM
I searched for Texas, but there does not seem to public education in Spanish. This article (http://www.dallasnews.com/news/education/headlines/20130503-explosive-growth-of-hispanics-in-texas-bring-dramatic-changes-to-schools.ece)talks of the problems with english education to non english speakers and doesn't mention spanish only schools. It doesn't mention spanish speaking people building fences to protect their neighborhood from english speakers either ;)
Again you are defending your position by stating that there are bigoted English speakers in the US. Don't you see how that undermines what you are saying?
It seems that viper's position is that any kind of language bigotry or shortcoming that has been perpetrated by anglophones anywhere in North America at any time, justifies the same policies in Quebec; that the aggregate of all these disparate bigotries and discrimination represents the baseline of anglo attitudes towards non anglophones; and that failing to agree with this makes you a hypocrite.
Quote from: garbon on August 15, 2013, 06:21:15 PM
I don't think a hospital specifically for one language group should be required though, so not sure what the point is there?
English-Quebecers have their own hospital. English only. Sometimes, if you're lucky, you'll have a bilingual nurse. They don't tolerate officially bilingual hospitals.
This costs a lot, doubling everything. Why not bilingual hospitals, at least for the big, news ones?
Quote
Again you are defending your position by stating that there are bigoted English speakers in the US. Don't you see how that undermines what you are saying?
So, in your opinion, it is bigotry that a state does not offer public education and health care in every language possible?
Quote from: Jacob on August 15, 2013, 06:51:01 PM
It seems that viper's position is that any kind of language bigotry or shortcoming that has been perpetrated by anglophones anywhere in North America at any time, justifies the same policies in Quebec; that the aggregate of all these disparate bigotries and discrimination represents the baseline of anglo attitudes towards non anglophones; and that failing to agree with this makes you a hypocrite.
This is what I'm talking about.
Not providing public english school for immigrants = bigotry. (and human rights violation according to Galganov)
Not providing public french schools for Canadians (or control, or decent funding). = sensible policy.
You guys expect french to compete on equal levels with english. Wich is unfair, because you ignore the active discrimination against french in the past, wich reduced the numbers outside of Quebec to an unmanageable level.
That's like anti global warming types saying the number of polar bears are stable so there should be no concerns about our activities. It conveniently ignores the fact that the number of animals have been on severe decline for many years and only recently with conservation efforts has it stabilized.
According to most of you guys, Quebec should do just that: declare open season on French and let nature do its work. Don't you think that's kinda silly? French isn't exactly evolving outside of Quebec. At best, we have slowed the decline in recent years. Why should we abandon our language, our tradition our culture?
Why should anyone be concerned with one language "competing" with another?
Quote from: viper37 on August 15, 2013, 07:57:45 PM
So, in your opinion, it is bigotry that a state does not offer public education and health care in every language possible?
Are we actually talking about every language possible? After all, you don't seem to be concerned with someone can get services in Tibetan. In my opinion states and federal government should make a good faith effort to communicate with their citizens. If someone tries to pass laws preventing these communications for instance refusal to fund Spanish language education in an area with a large Spanish population, provide tax forms in a language that the recipient can read, or otherwise try to use "soft" coercion to otherwise alienate and penalize speakers on one language, then yeah, that's bigotry.
Quote from: viper37 on August 15, 2013, 03:18:10 PM
As I said, it depends on the state. Vermont seems to find an interest in offering bilingual services in many places, even restaurants, airports and hotels. Isn't it strange that you get expelled from an Air Canada aircraft for asking the company to respect its rules and provide you with french services while a country who owes nothing to French Canadian feels the need to teach french in schools and encourage employers to hire bilingual staff?
Well, I should say New England, especially Northern New England, owes a great deal of the benefits of its industrialization to the toil of French-Canadians in its mills and factories. :hug: :swiss:
When you pass Montpelier you get a "Bienvenue" with your Welcome, and I think New Hampshire has the same thing. I don't really know about the extent to which French speakers are accommodated up here. While French-Canadian ancestry is by far the most common in the area of Vermont I work in, so many generations have gone by that I don't know how much French is still spoken at home.
Your Subway mustard example is amusing, since I was just in a Subway this week where I had to intervene briefly (in English) to keep a francophone woman and her child from getting the wrong things put on their sandwich. They had been debating their order for a long time behind me in French, so even with my limited skills, I had pretty much grasped what they were trying to order.
Quote from: viper37 on August 15, 2013, 07:57:45 PM
English-Quebecers have their own hospital. English only. Sometimes, if you're lucky, you'll have a bilingual nurse. They don't tolerate officially bilingual hospitals.
This costs a lot, doubling everything. Why not bilingual hospitals, at least for the big, news ones?
Quote from: viper37 on August 15, 2013, 07:57:45 PM
So, in your opinion, it is bigotry that a state does not offer public education and health care in every language possible?
No but when you use rhetoric that you aren't going to offer education or healthcare in a given language because they are insulting you by not learning your language or a threat to your culture, then I think there's a high likelihood that it is bigotry. Such is totally motivating such policies in Texas.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2013, 08:39:09 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 15, 2013, 07:57:45 PM
So, in your opinion, it is bigotry that a state does not offer public education and health care in every language possible?
Are we actually talking about every language possible? After all, you don't seem to be concerned with someone can get services in Tibetan. In my opinion states and federal government should make a good faith effort to communicate with their citizens. If someone tries to pass laws preventing these communications for instance refusal to fund Spanish language education in an area with a large Spanish population, provide tax forms in a language that the recipient can read, or otherwise try to use "soft" coercion to otherwise alienate and penalize speakers on one language, then yeah, that's bigotry.
:yes:
Quote from: viper37 on August 15, 2013, 08:03:38 PM
According to most of you guys, Quebec should do just that: declare open season on French and let nature do its work. Don't you think that's kinda silly? French isn't exactly evolving outside of Quebec. At best, we have slowed the decline in recent years. Why should we abandon our language, our tradition our culture?
If I take all of your statements as truly representative of what is occurring in Quebec, it sounds like you're just delaying the inevitable. If people want to speak a language they will and if they don't they won't.
Right now, there's a French program on the deportation of the Acadiens on 'RDI' (new channel for me) right now that I'm trying to follow/fall asleep to. :sleep: :)
Actually, it seems to be mainly about remaining Acadien culture in contemporary Qc.
The radio stations I can pick up on my commute are few in number, roughly 1/3 country, 1/3 French-language, 1/3 misc (bad nu-metal, 80s, folk). I run through all of them over the course of 25 minutes in the car, but the French stations definitely seem to play the most intense mix of styles...
99,9 The Buzz, Mihali.
CHOI FM? :P
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on August 15, 2013, 08:45:25 PM
Your Subway mustard example is amusing, since I was just in a Subway this week where I had to intervene briefly (in English) to keep a francophone woman and her child from getting the wrong things put on their sandwich. They had been debating their order for a long time behind me in French, so even with my limited skills, I had pretty much grasped what they were trying to order.
yeah, over here, outside of standard hours, they don't always have bilingual staff. They try to have at least 1-2 for lunch&dinner time, but there isn't enough volume to have 3 people all day long. McDonald's have bilingual staff though, as they are located near the transcanadian highway, tourists are frequent.
Quote from: garbon on August 15, 2013, 10:29:47 PM
No but when you use rhetoric that you aren't going to offer education or healthcare in a given language because they are insulting you by not learning your language or a threat to your culture, then I think there's a high likelihood that it is bigotry. Such is totally motivating such policies in Texas.
No.
I want bilingual hospitals in Montreal. There's a critical mass there. So why build two seperate research hospitals because anglos don't mix with french? Would you think it's a good idea if New York had one public hospital staffed mostly by blacks and another staffed mostly by whites instead of one mixed hospital? Why is it that segregation is considered acceptable for English Quebecers but we are the racists in suggesting they learn our language?
And I didn't say I wouldn't offer education to citizens. I want them to keep their schools. But I don't want to pay for my assimilation by education immigrants from all over the world in english. I'm willing to consider special cases, i.e. teens who transfer from an english school outside the country, but otherwise, they should received their education in french.
We can't possibly pay for everyone in their own language. Jews&Arabs have their own private schools where they teach Hebrew&Arabic. Foreign english speakers can't do it? As I said, searching through the net, there doesn't seem to be a ton of non english public schools in the US. I don't see why we should do it, given the precarious nature of our language and our limited funding when a gigantic country 10x richer we are and with no danger of assimilation in sight won't do it.
Apparently, it's racist for us, not for the others. And you find me weird for not understanding this double standard?
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on August 16, 2013, 01:18:39 AM
Right now, there's a French program on the deportation of the Acadiens on 'RDI' (new channel for me) right now that I'm trying to follow/fall asleep to. :sleep: :)
"Les Acadiens du Québec" ? :)
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 16, 2013, 08:02:08 AM
99,9 The Buzz, Mihali.
yeah, it's the only good radio station in Montreal. Even if it's not in Montreal :p
Quote from: garbon on August 15, 2013, 10:33:07 PM
If I take all of your statements as truly representative of what is occurring in Quebec, it sounds like you're just delaying the inevitable.
Possibly, it's just like the Southerners firing on Fort Sumter. But if we preserve our cultural heritage for that much longer, it's still a good thing.
Quote
If people want to speak a language they will and if they don't they won't.
Again, excluding history. Had French not been forbidden elsewhere in NA, there could be more speakers today. But English felt threatened, they discriminated against french language, until we were below the critical mass just about everywhere but in Quebec.
And then, there are people who still think it's not enough, and one french speaking province on the continent is too much. But we are the racist ones, hey. Go figure...
Quote from: viper37 on August 16, 2013, 09:38:13 AM
I want bilingual hospitals in Montreal. There's a critical mass there. So why build two seperate research hospitals because anglos don't mix with french? Would you think it's a good idea if New York had one public hospital staffed mostly by blacks and another staffed mostly by whites instead of one mixed hospital? Why is it that segregation is considered acceptable for English Quebecers but we are the racists in suggesting they learn our language?
I don't fucking understand. Why do you keep beating this drum when I already told you that I don't understand why they would need the hospitals split. Move on in you argument! :P
Quote from: viper37 on August 16, 2013, 09:38:13 AM
And I didn't say I wouldn't offer education to citizens. I want them to keep their schools. But I don't want to pay for my assimilation by education immigrants from all over the world in english. I'm willing to consider special cases, i.e. teens who transfer from an english school outside the country, but otherwise, they should received their education in french.
Why I thought the official policy was bilingualism? Doesn't sound very billingual if you refuse to provide instruction in both languages. :hmm:
Quote from: viper37 on August 16, 2013, 09:38:13 AM
We can't possibly pay for everyone in their own language. Jews&Arabs have their own private schools where they teach Hebrew&Arabic. Foreign english speakers can't do it? As I said, searching through the net, there doesn't seem to be a ton of non english public schools in the US. I don't see why we should do it, given the precarious nature of our language and our limited funding when a gigantic country 10x richer we are and with no danger of assimilation in sight won't do it.
While it might rhetorically sound good to keep hopping to this bit of every language, that doesn't really make much sense. English and French are the official languages, seems easy enough to then keep expenses to those two officially supported languages.
Quote from: viper37 on August 16, 2013, 09:38:13 AM
Apparently, it's racist for us, not for the others. And you find me weird for not understanding this double standard?
Except that I think the examples you provided about Texas are bigoted and so too if an English speaking person would refuse to go to a hospital with a bilingual staff. Doesn't make your opinion seem less bigoted if you are equating it with bigoted opinions.
Quote from: viper37 on August 16, 2013, 09:42:25 AM
Possibly, it's just like the Southerners firing on Fort Sumter. But if we preserve our cultural heritage for that much longer, it's still a good thing.
I see culture as more than just a language. Besides, I'm not saying that I want french to die out in Quebec but that it seems foolish to mandate its use as that only builds resentment and more individuals who will opt out of using it.
Quote from: viper37 on August 16, 2013, 09:42:25 AM
Again, excluding history. Had French not been forbidden elsewhere in NA, there could be more speakers today. But English felt threatened, they discriminated against french language, until we were below the critical mass just about everywhere but in Quebec.
Yeah but the problem is that those days are already past. Unless you can envision a manner in which French is going to suddenly become a hot language that people
want to learn, you need to keep your eye on the present and future. Is it awful that French speakers were discriminated against? Sure. I don't see how though that means that today we should coerce English speakers into learning French. How many wrongs to make a right?
Quote from: viper37 on August 16, 2013, 09:42:25 AM
And then, there are people who still think it's not enough, and one french speaking province on the continent is too much. But we are the racist ones, hey. Go figure...
Who are you having this conversation with? I think it is me but then you go into this odd tangents. And again, you do nothing but make your opinion sound bigoted if you want me to equate it with people who wanted to get rid of french speakers in Quebec.
So do Americans get treated better in Quebec than Anglo-Canadians? And do we get bonus points for making even pathetic attempts to speak some French?
Quote from: garbon on August 16, 2013, 09:52:49 AM
Why I thought the official policy was bilingualism? Doesn't sound very billingual if you refuse to provide instruction in both languages. :hmm:
The other provinces drag their feet and do the minimum required, usually after a long and costly trial, to provide french education to their citizens.
But we should do it for every single person that wants to stud in english, no questions asked?
What do you think was Quebec like before the language laws on education?
Quote
English and French are the official languages, seems easy enough to then keep expenses to those two officially supported languages.
Doesn't seem to work that way in most of Canada.
And again, I don't mind english education for Canadians. The real ones, not those who suddenly "choose" to become canadians on the eve of an election or a referendum, ferried by buses colored to the Liberal Party to the nearest judge to take their oath to the Queen.
I just don't see why I should pay for immigrants. They know it's a French territory, they're free to move in any of the 9 other provinces if they feel english is the One True Language. It's not up ot the province to anglicize its immigrants. We hope to bring them into our culture, not have them reject it outight. And that comes with french education. And a general "french" feeling to the place. People welcoming you in french, businesses speaking french to their customers. All these small bigotted things.
Quote
Except that I think the examples you provided about Texas are bigoted and so too if an English speaking person would refuse to go to a hospital with a bilingual staff. Doesn't make your opinion seem less bigoted if you are equating it with bigoted opinions.
If you're under attack and you don't fire back, what do you think happens?
Quote from: derspiess on August 16, 2013, 10:19:37 AM
So do Americans get treated better in Quebec than Anglo-Canadians? And do we get bonus points for making even pathetic attempts to speak some French?
No, yes but you need to know when to quit. Don't say "Bonjour, les escaliers sont bleus" if there are no blue stairs close by.
Quote from: viper37 on August 16, 2013, 09:39:41 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 16, 2013, 08:02:08 AM
99,9 The Buzz, Mihali.
yeah, it's the only good radio station in Montreal. Even if it's not in Montreal :p
Music wise. I like 98,5fm & Sports Radio. I miss CKAC everyday, I cannot wait for this stupid Radio Circulation contract to be over & we can get our sports radio back.
I think we're done, viper.
Quote from: derspiess on August 16, 2013, 10:19:37 AM
So do Americans get treated better in Quebec than Anglo-Canadians? And do we get bonus points for making even pathetic attempts to speak some French?
Everyone is well treated, regardless of language. Pathetic attemps are always welcome. So long as you don't show frustration, like many english canadians do, that people in the countryside can't always understand english. They consider it rude we don't speak their language. But we're bigoted for asking residents to speak ours.
So even, if you're wearing a t-shirt with Kate Middleton's pictures and a back-pack with a canadian flag, people will be as friendly as they are with locals.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 16, 2013, 10:56:58 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 16, 2013, 10:19:37 AM
So do Americans get treated better in Quebec than Anglo-Canadians? And do we get bonus points for making even pathetic attempts to speak some French?
No, yes but you need to know when to quit. Don't say "Bonjour, les escaliers sont bleus" if there are no blue stairs close by.
So I shouldn't approach people and say: "Est-ce que vous avez du thé? Je suis content mais il est fatigué." :unsure:
Quote from: viper37 on August 16, 2013, 11:00:00 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 16, 2013, 10:19:37 AM
So do Americans get treated better in Quebec than Anglo-Canadians? And do we get bonus points for making even pathetic attempts to speak some French?
Everyone is well treated, regardless of language. Pathetic attemps are always welcome. So long as you don't show frustration, like many english canadians do, that people in the countryside can't always understand english. They consider it rude we don't speak their language. But we're bigoted for asking residents to speak ours.
So even, if you're wearing a t-shirt with Kate Middleton's pictures and a back-pack with a canadian flag, people will be as friendly as they are with locals.
I was hoping it would be a reverse of the Canadian in Europe thing, where we'd avoid being harrassed by sewing an American flag on our backpacks :P
Quote from: garbon on August 16, 2013, 11:02:53 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 16, 2013, 10:56:58 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 16, 2013, 10:19:37 AM
So do Americans get treated better in Quebec than Anglo-Canadians? And do we get bonus points for making even pathetic attempts to speak some French?
No, yes but you need to know when to quit. Don't say "Bonjour, les escaliers sont bleus" if there are no blue stairs close by.
So I shouldn't approach people and say: "Est-ce que vous avez du thé? Je suis content mais il est fatigué." :unsure:
Only if you like being laughed that.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 16, 2013, 11:12:24 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 16, 2013, 11:02:53 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 16, 2013, 10:56:58 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 16, 2013, 10:19:37 AM
So do Americans get treated better in Quebec than Anglo-Canadians? And do we get bonus points for making even pathetic attempts to speak some French?
No, yes but you need to know when to quit. Don't say "Bonjour, les escaliers sont bleus" if there are no blue stairs close by.
So I shouldn't approach people and say: "Est-ce que vous avez du thé? Je suis content mais il est fatigué." :unsure:
Only if you like being laughed that.
At least they are laughing. :(
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 16, 2013, 08:12:19 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 16, 2013, 08:06:43 AM
CHOI FM? :P
That's in Quebec City.
Is it? I had thought they had closed it down for counter-revolutionary attitudes. Viper was raging about it for years.
Quote from: Neil on August 16, 2013, 11:30:45 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 16, 2013, 08:12:19 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 16, 2013, 08:06:43 AM
CHOI FM? :P
That's in Quebec City.
Is it? I had thought they had closed it down for counter-revolutionary attitudes. Viper was raging about it for years.
And Viper lives close to Quebec City.
Quote from: Barrister on August 16, 2013, 11:32:33 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 16, 2013, 11:30:45 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 16, 2013, 08:12:19 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 16, 2013, 08:06:43 AM
CHOI FM? :P
That's in Quebec City.
Is it? I had thought they had closed it down for counter-revolutionary attitudes. Viper was raging about it for years.
And Viper lives close to Quebec City.
Close? The same way someone who lives in Red Deer lives close to Edmonton/Calgary.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 16, 2013, 11:35:26 AM
Close? The same way someone who lives in Red Deer lives close to Edmonton/Calgary.
Red Deer is close to Calgary :unsure:
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 16, 2013, 11:46:26 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 16, 2013, 11:35:26 AM
Close? The same way someone who lives in Red Deer lives close to Edmonton/Calgary.
Red Deer is close to Calgary :unsure:
This highly relative.
However, Cochrane is close to Calgary. RD is not.
This might be a bad example since RD is big enough to be a City while where Viper lives, Riviere-Du-Loup, is just some small town 2h east of QC City.
Viper - your responses to me seem to be pretty divorced from anything I'm actually posting, so I'm dropping out of the conversation for the time being.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 16, 2013, 11:49:48 AM
This might be a bad example since RD is big enough to be a City while where Viper lives, Riviere-Du-Loup, is just some small town 2h east of QC City.
Yeah, probably the most significant difference.
So tell me about Chambly. Is it as ossum as I imagine?
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 16, 2013, 11:49:48 AM
This might be a bad example since RD is big enough to be a City while where Viper lives, Riviere-Du-Loup, is just some small town 2h east of QC City.
RDL is 45 minutes to the east of where I live. :) It's much smaller than that over here, RDL is like the area's metropolis :P
Quote from: derspiess on August 16, 2013, 12:06:06 PM
So tell me about Chambly. Is it as ossum as I imagine?
it's close to Montreal and the south shore is rapidly growing, getting more&more independant from MTL everyday. It's a small city surrounded by fields and the highway is far enough to not bother you.
Downside: if you need to work in Montreal, you're fucked. 3 of the bridges are half closed all the time and may crumble under you anytime. But if you can avoid Montreal, and you must live in a city, this might be good.
Quote from: Jacob on August 16, 2013, 11:55:05 AM
Viper - your responses to me seem to be pretty divorced from anything I'm actually posting,
how so?
Quote from: Barrister on August 16, 2013, 11:32:33 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 16, 2013, 11:30:45 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 16, 2013, 08:12:19 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 16, 2013, 08:06:43 AM
CHOI FM? :P
That's in Quebec City.
Is it? I had thought they had closed it down for counter-revolutionary attitudes. Viper was raging about it for years.
And Viper lives close to Quebec City.
142km., 1h27 minutes according to Google Maps. Of course, I've hear of tales, from people I know, who know some guys doing it in 1h00 or less. But I would never do such a thing, myself. :shutup:
Quote from: Neil on August 16, 2013, 11:30:45 AM
Is it? I had thought they had closed it down for counter-revolutionary attitudes. Viper was raging about it for years.
they tried. It was supposed to be shut down. But then, there was an election. With 11 Conservatives MPs, mostly in Quebec city. So the station was allowed to stay on, so long as it changed owner. But it's only a shadow of its former self, they removed all the music.