What a fucked up country. :nelson:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/11/24/no-recess-from-french-as-montreal-schools-to-scan-playground-chatter/
QuoteNo recess from French as Montreal schools to scan playground chatter
Graeme Hamilton Nov 24, 2011 – 11:28 PM ET
MONTREAL • The playgrounds, hallways and cafeterias of Quebec's largest school board will soon be French-only zones as authorities move to silence other languages, even during recess.
In a bid to ensure its 110,000 students master French, the Commission scolaire de Montréal has announced a new code of conduct declaring French de rigueur at all times during the school day.
Diane De Courcy, the board's chairwoman, said the approach will be persuasive not punitive.
"There will be no language police," she said. Instead, monitors who overhear children using their mother tongue during recess will simply remind them of the rules.
"If they are automatically switching to another language, [the monitor] will gently tap them on the shoulder — not on the head — to tell them, 'Remember, we speak French. It's good for you.'
"It will be enough to deliver a clear message that French must be spoken, and when we speak it often, we become very good at it."
She said the policy, which will come fully into effect in September, is needed to improve the French performance of students, who increasingly come from immigrant families.
The school board's statistics show 53% of its students have a mother tongue other than French. A poll this fall of 811 parents found 70% agreed with imposing French at all times.
Quebec's Charter of the French Language, Bill 101, requires children of immigrants to attend French-language schools. This has led to generations of allophone Quebecers – those whose mother tongue is neither French nor English – who are perfectly at ease in French. Up until now, the rules have applied inside the classroom only.
But fears French will be swamped by English are not easily assuaged.
This year, the separatist Parti Québécois committed to extending Bill 101's provisions to the pre-university colleges known as CEGEPs if elected, which would prohibit adults from attending the school of their choice.
Pauline Marois, the PQ leader, has even toyed with the idea of applying Bill 101 to toddlers attending subsidized daycares.
Julius Grey, a prominent Montreal civil-rights lawyer, said the school board's proposal is a clear violation of students' rights and would not withstand a court challenge.
"In order to justify it you have to show it's necessary in a free and democratic society, and it really isn't. They have no studies at all. They just have an idea about spreading a message," he said.
"That is quite a weak basis to violate rights."
Mr. Grey noted the rule could even apply to a couple of francophone children who wanted to practise their English in the schoolyard before a test.
"Bill 101 works when it is not pushed to illogical extremes," he said. "All laws are subject to common sense. The applying of Bill 101 beyond common sense is rather a recipe for keeping tensions going than for ending them."
But Ms. De Courcy said she has heard little but praise for the plan, which would also apply to children of old-stock Quebecers who "massacre" the language.
"We are not infringing on children's freedom," she insisted.
And she has received support from Christine St-Pierre, the Liberal cabinet minister responsible for language.
"I think that children who attend school in French must, in the hallways, speak French among themselves," Ms. St-Pierre told La Presse.
"To say that things must happen in French in the schoolyard sends a clear message: You are learning French.' "
There will be no language police.
That means there will be.
It's funny that usually it's the shitty non-entities like Quebec that come up with crap like that.
I for one have never met a Quebecois I didn't consider deserving of a bullet in the brain. Neil, see to it.
Quote from: Martinus on November 27, 2011, 11:50:43 AM
I for one have never met a Quebecois I didn't consider deserving of a bullet in the brain. Neil, see to it.
That says more about you than the Quebecois as a whole.
"Remember, we speak French. It's good for you." lol. that's just creepy.
I expect the usual suspects will eventually show up and say it's just anglophone Canada blowing something out of proportion or perhaps outright slander.
I like how these cretins have a minister responsible for language. What a bunch of fucking faggots.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 27, 2011, 10:19:39 AM
Quote"There will be no language police," she said. Instead, monitors who overhear children using their mother tongue during recess will simply remind them of the rules.
The Ministry of Truth is happy to hear this.
And, there are no American tanks in Baghdad.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com%2Fimages%2F07-minister.jpg&hash=29b87fd7c997c4df32daf29cdc8bf6f69b2c5e24)
Quote from: Martinus on November 27, 2011, 12:21:16 PM
I like how these cretins have a minister responsible for language. What a bunch of fucking faggots.
You really like that word cretin don't you?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 27, 2011, 10:19:39 AM
What a fucked up country. :nelson:
Quotethe plan, which would also apply to children of old-stock Quebecers who "massacre" the language.
Good thing Grey Fox made it out before these new laws go into effect.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 27, 2011, 12:58:45 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 27, 2011, 12:21:16 PM
I like how these cretins have a minister responsible for language. What a bunch of fucking faggots.
You really like that word cretin don't you?
He identifies a lot with it.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 27, 2011, 01:04:36 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 27, 2011, 10:19:39 AM
What a fucked up country. :nelson:
Quotethe plan, which would also apply to children of old-stock Quebecers who "massacre" the language.
Good thing Grey Fox made it out before these new laws go into effect.
Quote from: Habbaku on November 27, 2011, 01:21:34 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 27, 2011, 12:58:45 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 27, 2011, 12:21:16 PM
I like how these cretins have a minister responsible for language. What a bunch of fucking faggots.
You really like that word cretin don't you?
He identifies a lot with it.
It's a medical condition not really found in the West anymore. Perhaps it's more common where he lives.
:lol:
We barely enforce those we already have.
Harper will set things right.
Good for the Language Police. Vive le France.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 27, 2011, 02:22:53 PM
Good for the Language Police. Vive le France.
CdM: Not a real American.
Quote from: Habbaku on November 27, 2011, 01:21:34 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 27, 2011, 12:58:45 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 27, 2011, 12:21:16 PM
I like how these cretins have a minister responsible for language. What a bunch of fucking faggots.
You really like that word cretin don't you?
He identifies a lot with it.
:lol:
Actually, "idiot" and "cretin" are popular insults in Polish.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 27, 2011, 02:22:53 PM
Good for the Language Police. Vive le France.
La France. :nerd:
Quote from: Martinus on November 27, 2011, 03:15:54 PM
:lol:
Actually, "idiot" and "cretin" are popular insults in Polish.
Like I said, maybe iodine deficiency is more common there.
Quote from: Martinus on November 27, 2011, 03:15:54 PM
:lol:
Actually, "idiot" and "cretin" are popular insults in Polish.
The Polish must encounter those types a lot if they are so popular. :hmm:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 27, 2011, 08:57:13 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 27, 2011, 03:36:57 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 27, 2011, 02:22:53 PM
Good for the Language Police. Vive le France.
La France. :nerd:
Le France sounds more French.
Le France is, or more accurately, was a boat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_France_(1961) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_France_(1961))
I don't know if it had anything to do with law back then, but we were reminded to speak french by our monitors too when I was in primary school back in the early 80s.
Maybe it's more about school policy or something. I went to an immigrant heavy school, maybe that's why they wanted us to practice, I dunno.
Quote from: HVC on November 27, 2011, 12:07:04 PM
"Remember, we speak French. It's good for you." lol. that's just creepy.
it ain't any different than what was done in Ontario, New Brunswick, various other provinces and the US for non-english speakers. Without the beatings of course.
But it's still a dumb move, and I doubt it will become official policy. Because that is not official policy, contrary to what the National Post is reporting (the NP getting its facts wrong about Quebec, how can it be?? ... ). The school board asked parents in a survey if they tought it was a good idea, 70% of them said so.
What the NP isn't saying, is it's a measure to decrease dropout rate and increase success at french exams. Kids apparently lack proper practice of french. No different than teachers insisting we speak correct french while in the corridors, when I was in elementary school.
Imho, still a dumb move, but justifiable given the rational objectives aimed at.
Quote from: viper37 on November 28, 2011, 11:43:46 AM
Quote from: HVC on November 27, 2011, 12:07:04 PM
"Remember, we speak French. It's good for you." lol. that's just creepy.
it ain't any different than what was done in Ontario, New Brunswick, various other provinces and the US for non-english speakers. Without the beatings of course.
But it's still a dumb move, and I doubt it will become official policy. Because that is not official policy, contrary to what the National Post is reporting (the NP getting its facts wrong about Quebec, how can it be?? ... ). The school board asked parents in a survey if they tought it was a good idea, 70% of them said so.
What the NP isn't saying, is it's a measure to decrease dropout rate and increase success at french exams. Kids apparently lack proper practice of french. No different than teachers insisting we speak correct french while in the corridors, when I was in elementary school.
Imho, still a dumb move, but justifiable given the rational objectives aimed at.
My poor Viper, you're setting yourself up for another pointless deaf dialogue.
But I happen to agree - stupid move from the local authority who sponsors it - they won't be able to enforce it.
G.
Quote from: viper37 on November 28, 2011, 11:43:46 AM
Quote from: HVC on November 27, 2011, 12:07:04 PM
"Remember, we speak French. It's good for you." lol. that's just creepy.
it ain't any different than what was done in Ontario, New Brunswick, various other provinces and the US for non-english speakers. Without the beatings of course.
they went around doing that during people spare time (which is what recess is)? I have no problem with making kids speak french in class, but doing so during recess just strikes me as very similar to going around to all the immigrant kids and telling them to "speak white".
Quote from: viper37 on November 28, 2011, 11:43:46 AM
it ain't any different than what was done in Ontario, New Brunswick, various other provinces and the US for non-english speakers. Without the beatings of course.
Can't speak for Ontario, etc in Canada, but I am aware of no US school system that enforces an "English-only playground" rule. Maybe you meant the UK?
I also am not aware of any beatings that Quebec is proposing (as compared, you note, with these other places). Got any more details?
QuoteBut it's still a dumb move, and I doubt it will become official policy. Because that is not official policy, contrary to what the National Post is reporting (the NP getting its facts wrong about Quebec, how can it be?? ... ). The school board asked parents in a survey if they tought it was a good idea, 70% of them said so.
Who is this "Diane De Courcy," then, whom the NP erroneously reports is the chair of the Commission scolaire de Montréal? She clearly doesn't know that this isn't official policy. "She said the policy, which will come fully into effect in September, is needed to improve the French performance of students..." What do you know that she does not?
QuoteWhat the NP isn't saying, is it's a measure to decrease dropout rate and increase success at french exams. Kids apparently lack proper practice of french. No different than teachers insisting we speak correct french while in the corridors, when I was in elementary school.
Imho, still a dumb move, but justifiable given the rational objectives aimed at.
Why is it "dumb" if it is no different than what happened to you when you were walking to and from school (three miles uphill each way in the snow, I'm guessing :P), and is rational and justified?
The beatings part would be dumb, but the story doesn't mention that (maybe because this Diane De Courcy person doesn't know about them, or maybe because that is just the NP getting its facts wrong about Quebec, how can it be??).
Quote from: HVC on November 28, 2011, 12:11:55 PM
they went around doing that during people spare time (which is what recess is)? I have no problem with making kids speak french in class, but doing so during recess just strikes me as very similar to going around to all the immigrant kids and telling them to "speak white".
yes, they did. There weren't much french schools in Canada until the 70s. Before that, it was a verbotten language, or subject to administration by english school boards (thanks to Sir Wilfrid Laurier).
And recess in high school isn't really spare time, it's more a "no class time". You usually have cultural and sport activities to attend.
Quote from: viper37 on November 28, 2011, 01:23:36 PMAnd recess in high school isn't really spare time, it's more a "no class time". You usually have cultural and sport activities to attend.
:huh:
In High school my recess was "You now have 15min to get to your other class".
We didn't have recess in HS. The break was lunch.
Quote from: grumbler on November 28, 2011, 12:44:19 PM
Can't speak for Ontario, etc in Canada, but I am aware of no US school system that enforces an "English-only playground" rule. Maybe you meant the UK?
check your history books? Louisiana kids were beaten for speaking french in schools. Same in Massachussets around the turn of the 20th century.
Same happenned in Canada for Métis, indian and French kids. English or beating, your choice.
And then they can proudly say "there's not enough french speakers to justify a school".
Quote
Who is this "Diane De Courcy," then, whom the NP erroneously reports is the chair of the Commission scolaire de Montréal? She clearly doesn't know that this isn't official policy. "She said the policy, which will come fully into effect in September, is needed to improve the French performance of students..." What do you know that she does not?
Wrong quote from the National Post? I don't know. All I know is it ain't official policy yet.
Quote
Why is it "dumb" if it is no different than what happened to you when you were walking to and from school (three miles uphill each way in the snow, I'm guessing :P), and is rational and justified?
First, it's not about what you speak on your way to school, it's about what you speak while inside the school (or the courtyard).
It is dumb, because it won't work. It can't be enforced as teachers watching the kids can't really get close enough to listen to them while at the same time watching for fights, or injured kids.
And I don't see the harm in kids speaking arab or chinese among themselves in the school yards. It won't convince them that French is cool, it won't make them speak better french. As soon as they're back home, they'll revert to their primary language, with French as a 2nd or 3rd language. Such is the nature of immigration.
Quote
The beatings part would be dumb, but the story doesn't mention that (maybe because this Diane De Courcy person doesn't know about them, or maybe because that is just the NP getting its facts wrong about Quebec, how can it be??).
No beatings in Quebec schools. Not that some kids wouldn't deserve it, but corporal punishment is judged to be retarded ever since we kicked out religion of our public schools. I know, it hurts to be that liberal, but we nonetheless survive ;)
Quote from: Jacob on November 28, 2011, 01:25:44 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 28, 2011, 01:23:36 PMAnd recess in high school isn't really spare time, it's more a "no class time". You usually have cultural and sport activities to attend.
:huh:
you're still in school, subject to the school's rules, and have obligation to attend sports&cultural activities or do your homeworks under supervision, if need be.
I can't call that "spare time". Spare time, is when I do what I want. If I'm still subject to the dress code of the school and have a precise schedule to meet, I can't call that "spare time". Just like phys-ed is not spare time.
Quote from: viper37 on November 28, 2011, 01:43:03 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 28, 2011, 01:25:44 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 28, 2011, 01:23:36 PMAnd recess in high school isn't really spare time, it's more a "no class time". You usually have cultural and sport activities to attend.
:huh:
you're still in school, subject to the school's rules, and have obligation to attend sports&cultural activities or do your homeworks under supervision, if need be.
I can't call that "spare time". Spare time, is when I do what I want. If I'm still subject to the dress code of the school and have a precise schedule to meet, I can't call that "spare time". Just like phys-ed is not spare time.
Walking between classes is spare time.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 28, 2011, 01:38:39 PM
We didn't have recess in HS. The break was lunch.
Ya, we had lunch and spares.
Quote from: viper37 on November 28, 2011, 01:23:36 PM
yes, they did. There weren't much french schools in Canada until the 70s. Before that, it was a verbotten language, or subject to administration by english school boards (thanks to Sir Wilfrid Laurier).
And recess in high school isn't really spare time, it's more a "no class time". You usually have cultural and sport activities to attend.
Never heard about punishment outside of the class, but i'll take your word for it. in which case it was stupid then and stupid now. Two wrongs don't make a right, and what not. as for the beatings, everything was beatings in those days. write with teh wrong hand. beating. interupt class. beating. look at the teacher funny. beating. and so on :D
Quote from: viper37 on November 28, 2011, 01:43:03 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 28, 2011, 01:25:44 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 28, 2011, 01:23:36 PMAnd recess in high school isn't really spare time, it's more a "no class time". You usually have cultural and sport activities to attend.
:huh:
you're still in school, subject to the school's rules, and have obligation to attend sports&cultural activities or do your homeworks under supervision, if need be.
I can't call that "spare time". Spare time, is when I do what I want. If I'm still subject to the dress code of the school and have a precise schedule to meet, I can't call that "spare time". Just like phys-ed is not spare time.
In our schools, "recess" was unorganized play time, and as Ide pointed out we didn't have that in high school--it was essentially an elementary and middle school thing. Doing homework under supervision while outside of class was "study hall".
Quote from: viper37 on November 28, 2011, 01:40:52 PM
check your history books? Louisiana kids were beaten for speaking french in schools. Same in Massachussets around the turn of the 20th century.
None of my history books say that any Louisiana kids are currently being beaten for speaking French on the playgrounds. If you are arguing that Quebec is the cultural or educational equivalent of Louisiana in the 919th C or Massachusetts at the turn of the 20th, I'd have to say I think you are totally full of shit. You cannot justify actions today based on repudiated actions of people a century or two ago.
QuoteSame happenned in Canada for Métis, indian and French kids. English or beating, your choice.
And then they can proudly say "there's not enough french speakers to justify a school".
This is Quebec's model? That's pretty fucked up.
QuoteWrong quote from the National Post? I don't know. All I know is it ain't official policy yet.
Got a cite? I think you lose the credibility battle here in a rout. If the head of the board thinks it is a policy and all the counter-argument I have is a naked assertion by somebody who thinks the model for language education was set by people in the 19th C, I know what i am going to believe.
QuoteFirst, it's not about what you speak on your way to school, it's about what you speak while inside the school (or the courtyard).
It is dumb, because it won't work. It can't be enforced as teachers watching the kids can't really get close enough to listen to them while at the same time watching for fights, or injured kids.
You said it was no different than what worked on you when you were in school. what has changed? More kids injured?
QuoteAnd I don't see the harm in kids speaking arab or chinese among themselves in the school yards. It won't convince them that French is cool, it won't make them speak better french. As soon as they're back home, they'll revert to their primary language, with French as a 2nd or 3rd language. Such is the nature of immigration.
That wasn't true when you were in school?
QuoteNo beatings in Quebec schools. Not that some kids wouldn't deserve it, but corporal punishment is judged to be retarded ever since we kicked out religion of our public schools. I know, it hurts to be that liberal, but we nonetheless survive ;)
Really? You Quebec guys are modelling your policies based on 19thC Louisiana and early 20C Massachusetts, but refusing to commit to the hard parts? I predict a fail. Of course, there are no beatings in any modern schools system in the world either, but you don't seem to mind that "modern" Quebec language policies in education "ain't any different than what was done in Ontario, New Brunswick, various other provinces and the US for non-english speakers" in the remote past.
To most of us moderns, those policies (which we abandoned long ago) appear creepy. But since we all agree that they are doomed to failure, I guess this is just another case of the public laughing at boneheaded bureaucrats trying to roll boulders up hills.
This nonsense shows what cultural insecurity can do to a society. Why couldnt they have just tell children that it would be a good idea to practice speaking french on their own time. Why the need for monitors? Wouldnt resources be better spent actually teaching?
What monitors? What ressources?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 28, 2011, 03:39:23 PM
This nonsense shows what cultural insecurity can do to a society. Why couldnt they have just tell children that it would be a good idea to practice speaking french on their own time. Why the need for monitors? Wouldnt resources be better spent actually teaching?
I'm pretty sure there are already monitors to prevent the kids from harming themselves during recess. I know we had a few for precisely that purpose.
Quote from: garbon on November 28, 2011, 01:43:54 PM
Walking between classes is spare time.
not really. If you're caught chatting instead of walking to class, you may have a warning.
What? Really? That's pretty draconian. When are you supposed to talk to people? (If you're not supposed to talk to people, is there significant point to being made to go to a building to be talked at?)
Quote from: viper37 on November 28, 2011, 01:40:52 PM
Louisiana kids were beaten for speaking french in schools.
I don't think anyone has spoken real French in Louisiana since de Laussat shipped out of New Orleans.
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 28, 2011, 03:51:28 PM
What monitors? What ressources?
The people employed to monitor the french only school yard rules and the resources used to pay them.
From the article:
Quote"If they are automatically switching to another language, [the monitor] will gently tap them on the shoulder — not on the head — to tell them, 'Remember, we speak French. It's good for you.'
Query: What if the kid doesn't know French?
Quote from: Ideologue on November 28, 2011, 04:14:59 PM
Query: What if the kid doesn't know French?
he sits quielty in the corner as his french teachers look at him with disdain in their eyes.
Quote from: Barrister on November 28, 2011, 03:54:28 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 28, 2011, 03:39:23 PM
This nonsense shows what cultural insecurity can do to a society. Why couldnt they have just tell children that it would be a good idea to practice speaking french on their own time. Why the need for monitors? Wouldnt resources be better spent actually teaching?
I'm pretty sure there are already monitors to prevent the kids from harming themselves during recess. I know we had a few for precisely that purpose.
Yes normally you have one or two people watching a whole school yard - hardly able to be at a distance to listen in to ensure that the french only rule is being followed. Imagine how much it would cost to have enough monitors out to enforce this rule.
Creating a rule which is unenforceable brings such a system into disrepute.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 28, 2011, 04:10:37 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 28, 2011, 01:40:52 PM
Louisiana kids were beaten for speaking french in schools.
I don't think anyone has spoken real French in Louisiana since de Laussat shipped out of New Orleans.
Viper has a long memory.
Quote from: grumbler on November 28, 2011, 03:30:46 PM
If you are arguing that Quebec is the cultural or educational equivalent of Louisiana in the 919th C or Massachusetts at the turn of the 20th, I'd have to say I think you are totally full of shit. You cannot justify actions today based on repudiated actions of people a century or two ago.
At one point, it was justified to preserve the English language. But it seems that when it's to protect the French language, and help kids succeed at their French exams by offering total immersion, it's wrong.
Quote
Got a cite? I think you lose the credibility battle here in a rout. If the head of the board thinks it is a policy and all the counter-argument I have is a naked assertion by somebody who thinks the model for language education was set by people in the 19th C, I know what i am going to believe.
Conditional is used in the French text, everywhere, from the title to the last bits of text (http://www.cyberpresse.ca/actualites/quebec-canada/education/201111/22/01-4470628-le-francais-pourrait-etre-obligatoire-partout-a-lecole.php)
Quote
You said it was no different than what worked on you when you were in school. what has changed? More kids injured?
We were required to speak proper french in elementary school, even outside class.
What has changed is that in Montreal, french speakers are moving out of the city and immigrants are moving in. Immigrants don't speak French for the most part. They speak Portuguese, Spanish, Arabic, Chinese, Vietnamese, etc. Mostly arabic nowadays.
This is why many people see a problem with Montreal, where French is regressing rather than progressing. And students have an harder time succeeding at french exams because it's their 3rd language.
QuoteThat wasn't true when you were in school?
Total immigrants of my home town when I attended school: 1 Polish, 1 American who moved out after a few months, 1 Ontarian girl.
As I said, we were required to speak proper French, not used 'slang', absolutely no swearing, but foreign languages weren't an issue.
Quote
Of course, there are no beatings in any modern schools system in the world either,
Depends what you define as modern.
By your definition US Southern States are not modern:
ndividual US states have the power to ban corporal punishment in their schools. Currently, it is banned in public schools in 31 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.[95] In two of these states, New Jersey[96] and Iowa,[97] it is illegal in private schools as well. The 19 states that have not banned it are mostly in the South. It is still used to a significant (though declining)[98] degree in some public schools in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas.[95]And a nice piece about Texas:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/education/30punish.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1322514998-TL1MNi0hJ6B5nMK0h31OVg
Quotebut you don't seem to mind that "modern" Quebec language policies in education "ain't any different than what was done in Ontario, New Brunswick, various other provinces and the US for non-english speakers" in the remote past.
No, I do not mind. Historically, French would have developped differently had it not been forbidden everywhere. There might have been 50% French population in this country instead of 23% and on the decline.
It's our duty to fight back. Resistance is not futile.
Quote
To most of us moderns, those policies (which we abandoned long ago) appear creepy. But since we all agree that they are doomed to failure, I guess this is just another case of the public laughing at boneheaded bureaucrats trying to roll boulders up hills.
Corporal punishment appears creepy to me, yet it's still in use in the US.
The language policies, I agree with the principle, I think the execution is stupid, just like many other laws in Quebec (I have to fill forms on "wage equity" now for my company, barely 30 employees, all subjected to union rules outside of my jurisdiction).
This particular measure is simply doomed to fail, if it ever pass.
@ CC: See Barrister's answer. Same people. Hence the reason why De Courcy underlined the fact that there would be no language police, despite the NP's title. In fact, it is pretty clear that it is more akin to a «school pledge» than to the kind of repressive apparatus the NP is hinting at (shocking!).
I'll just note in passing that this eventual policy was grounded in a survey made which comprised more than 2/3 of allophone parents who supported it at 70%, and that one of the school board commissioner who spoke to the press in favour of it was Hungarian-born Akos Verboczy.
Not that it makes that policy less stupid, mind you. But it makes it less of the usual hysterically «OMG those racist Québécois» than what the NP delights in reporting.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 28, 2011, 04:13:08 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 28, 2011, 03:51:28 PM
What monitors? What ressources?
The people employed to monitor the french only school yard rules and the resources used to pay them.
From the article:
Quote"If they are automatically switching to another language, [the monitor] will gently tap them on the shoulder — not on the head — to tell them, 'Remember, we speak French. It's good for you.'
apparently, our school education systems are very different. I didn't spend long enough in an Ontarian school to remember that. In Quebec, you have teachers/monitors watching over kids in the school yard as weel as in the gym, cafeteria corridors. Teachers or monitors (sometimes retired teachers) watching over kids, warning them if they run, scream/shout, intervening if they fight, if one student is hurt, etc.
At my private school, it was pretty draconian. Last year I was there, you couldn't even wear jeans during the lunch breaks, you had to keep to the school's clothing policy.
I suppose they don't have these in Canada and US, wich makes it awkward to read, I guess. I figure it's like the Simpsons and you have students to watch over other students?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 28, 2011, 04:10:37 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 28, 2011, 01:40:52 PM
Louisiana kids were beaten for speaking french in schools.
I don't think anyone has spoken real French in Louisiana since de Laussat shipped out of New Orleans.
it nearly disapeared before WWII, started reapearing in the 80s, IIRC.
"In the 1850s white Francophones remained an intact and vibrant community, maintaining instruction in French in two of the city's four school districts.
[23] As the Creole elite feared, however, this changed with the Civil War; in 1862 French instruction in schools was abolished by Union general Ben Butler, and teaching of the language was forbidden in schools in 1868.
[23] By the end of the 19th century French usage in the city had faded significantly,
[24] although as late as 1945 one still encountered elderly Creole women who spoke no English"
De Laussat left c.a. 1831. French was still a vibrant language in Louisiana at the time.
Quote from: viper37 on November 28, 2011, 04:21:26 PM
And a nice piece about Texas:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/education/30punish.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1322514998-TL1MNi0hJ6B5nMK0h31OVg
Well as the article makes clear this sort of thing is not a statewide policy. Our state government is very weak and most policies are made by local governments. That makes something like say, a drive to stop corporal punishment, have to be done on a district by district basis.
One point to keep in mind whenever looking at how Texas does things is that our state constitution was written back during the Wild Wild West days when it just made good sense to empower local officials since communications were so bad and distances were so far. Now those policies are so entrenched, there is just no political will to update it to something more centralized and modern.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 28, 2011, 04:08:08 PM
What? Really? That's pretty draconian. When are you supposed to talk to people? (If you're not supposed to talk to people, is there significant point to being made to go to a building to be talked at?)
During lunch break, if you had no activities planned, it was ok. But during recess, that was the time to go to your locker, change books, get to the other classroom. Chatting was ok while walking, but very quietly, and absolutely no stopping in the corridors.
At my private school, you were required to have activites 3 days out of a 7 days schedule. So I worked at the cafeteria the other 4 days of the schedule.
Quote from: Valmy on November 28, 2011, 04:31:13 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 28, 2011, 04:21:26 PM
And a nice piece about Texas:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/education/30punish.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1322514998-TL1MNi0hJ6B5nMK0h31OVg
Well as the article makes clear this sort of thing is not a statewide policy. Our state government is very weak and most policies are made by local governments. That makes something like say, a drive to stop corporal punishment, have to be done on a district by district basis.
doesn't matter, it's still in effect, and AFAIK, all of the US is considered a civiliez country with a modern education system, unless Grumbler specifically excluded some parts of Texas from that modern education system ;)
Quote from: viper37 on November 28, 2011, 01:43:03 PMyou're still in school, subject to the school's rules, and have obligation to attend sports&cultural activities or do your homeworks under supervision, if need be.
I can't call that "spare time". Spare time, is when I do what I want. If I'm still subject to the dress code of the school and have a precise schedule to meet, I can't call that "spare time". Just like phys-ed is not spare time.
Yes to some of it, but when I was in high school I was never obligated to attend any kind of sport or cultural activity on my lunch break, time between classes or during my spares (which is what the time when you had no class scheduled was called).
Occasionally, if there was some full day arrangement it would eat into non-class time somehow, but I never had any rules on how I disposed of my non-class time when I went to high school
Thus: :huh:
Quote from: viper37 on November 28, 2011, 04:35:26 PM
doesn't matter, it's still in effect, and AFAIK, all of the US is considered a civiliez country with a modern education system, unless Grumbler specifically excluded some parts of Texas from that modern education system ;)
Well there is no doubt grumbler would have no problem with that characterization of much of Texas :P
Quote from: viper37 on November 28, 2011, 04:03:06 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 28, 2011, 01:43:54 PM
Walking between classes is spare time.
not really. If you're caught chatting instead of walking to class, you may have a warning.
Your school sounds horrible.
Quote from: viper37 on November 28, 2011, 04:27:49 PM
De Laussat left c.a. 1831. French was still a vibrant language in Louisiana at the time.
Nitpick: Laussat left in 1804, not long after the ceremony which transfered Louisiana to the US (and not long after the ceremony which had previously transfered it back to France...). And yes, French was very vibrant both in 1804 (due to the influx of planter-refugees from Haiti) and in 1831 (due to the arrival of the new wave of French immigrants, the «Foreign French»). The turning point was set in the late 1840s, with the end of the Civil War marking the decline of political control by Francophones, despite rising number of French immigrants (there were still more from other parts of the world, who decided rather to learn English... hmm...).
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 28, 2011, 04:25:27 PMNot that it makes that policy less stupid, mind you. But it makes it less of the usual hysterically «OMG those racist Québécois» than what the NP delights in reporting.
That's kind of what I figured. Something mildly silly but ultimately inconsequential, reported in the Post to whip sensitive souls into frothy indignation.
I presume you meant the 1860's there Oex.
Quote from: Valmy on November 28, 2011, 04:40:40 PM
I presume you meant the 1860's there Oex.
No, it is just that I wasn't very clear. Francophones retained control over political structure until the end of the 1840s, and their political decline continued slowly until the Civil War. Then it accelerated, despite the growing number of francophones (I don't have the numbers with me here, unfortunately).
Quote from: Jacob on November 28, 2011, 04:40:28 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 28, 2011, 04:25:27 PMNot that it makes that policy less stupid, mind you. But it makes it less of the usual hysterically «OMG those racist Québécois» than what the NP delights in reporting.
That's kind of what I figured. Something mildly silly but ultimately inconsequential, reported in the Post to whip sensitive souls into frothy indignation.
The whipping into frothy indignation appears to be happening entirely within Quebec. The Post is merely reporting on it.
To my mind, what is more hilarious than the silliness of the policy, is the hysterical tone of the response to it.
'It may be silly, but you guys did it too, in the 19th century, and worse. Moreover, it is a nothing of a nothing, blown out of purportion by outsiders - and in any case, we did a survey, most parents approved, and just to be sure we got input from our Cabinet Minister ... '
:lol:
Quote from: Jacob on November 28, 2011, 04:37:35 PM
Your school sounds horrible.
might explain the high drop-out rate. I believe that sports&cultural activities weren't mandatory in public high-school, I just can't remember. I know I played soccer and I watched over the computer lab, I just can't remember if I was required to.
Quote from: viper37 on November 28, 2011, 04:33:46 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 28, 2011, 04:08:08 PM
What? Really? That's pretty draconian. When are you supposed to talk to people? (If you're not supposed to talk to people, is there significant point to being made to go to a building to be talked at?)
During lunch break, if you had no activities planned, it was ok. But during recess, that was the time to go to your locker, change books, get to the other classroom. Chatting was ok while walking, but very quietly, and absolutely no stopping in the corridors.
At my private school, you were required to have activites 3 days out of a 7 days schedule. So I worked at the cafeteria the other 4 days of the schedule.
The private school you mention in the second paragraph is the same school as the school in the first paragraph? Because that would explain it.
Quote from: Malthus on November 28, 2011, 04:51:04 PM
The whipping into frothy indignation appears to be happening entirely within Quebec. The Post is merely reporting on it.
Tim is one of us. He hides it very well, but secretly, he is teaching in Quebec.
Unless there's another thread started by a Québécois. Because otherwise, you're wrong, as usual when it comes to Quebec.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 28, 2011, 04:52:05 PM
The private school you mention in the second paragraph is the same school as the school in the first paragraph? Because that would explain it.
yes. Breaks were shorter too.
Quote from: grumbler on November 28, 2011, 03:30:46 PM
If you are arguing that Quebec is the cultural or educational equivalent of Louisiana in the 919th C or Massachusetts at the turn of the 20th, I'd have to say I think you are totally full of shit.
Well, grumbler, to be fair, we don't know yet whether or not present-day Quebec is the cultural or educational equivalent of Louisiana in the 919th century. We'll have to wait almost 89800 years to find out for sure.
:)
Quote from: Malthus on November 28, 2011, 04:51:04 PM
The whipping into frothy indignation appears to be happening entirely within Quebec.
Where's the froth? Where's the indignation? Is Viper the spokesperson for Quebec?
Quote from: viper37 on November 28, 2011, 04:52:26 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 28, 2011, 04:51:04 PM
The whipping into frothy indignation appears to be happening entirely within Quebec. The Post is merely reporting on it.
Tim is one of us. He hides it very well, but secretly, he is teaching in Quebec.
Unless there's another thread started by a Québécois. Because otherwise, you're wrong, as usual when it comes to Quebec.
I'm refering to the contents of the article, not to Tim - who, as far as I understand the matter, is not being reported
on.
Unless you are stating that "prominent Montreal civil rights lawyer" Julius Grey and "Cabinet Minister" Christine St-Pierre (both, I understand, from the Province of Quebec) are both really Timmay ... :hmm:
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 28, 2011, 04:55:00 PM
Where's the froth? Where's the indignation? Is Viper the spokesperson for Quebec?
I'm referring to the contents of the article, not to Tim posting it or Viper bringing his usual clarity and insight to it.
When I see on the one hand a "prominent Montreal civil rights lawyer" saying that the policy is " is a
clear violation of students' rights and would not withstand a court challenge", while a "Liberal Cabinet Minister"
supports the policy, the natural supposition is that the *source* of the "froth and indignation" is *within* Quebec.
Unless of course the Post made all that stuff up.
Quote from: dps on November 28, 2011, 04:53:55 PM
Well, grumbler, to be fair, we don't know yet whether or not present-day Quebec is the cultural or educational equivalent of Louisiana in the 919th century. We'll have to wait almost 89800 years to find out for sure.
:)
Grumbler will be experiencing his mid-life crisis then, so I'm sure it'll be an exciting time.
Quote from: Malthus on November 28, 2011, 05:02:22 PM
I'm referring to the contents of the article, not to Tim posting it or Viper bringing his usual clarity and insight to it.
When I see on the one hand a "prominent Montreal civil rights lawyer" saying that the policy is " is a clear violation of students' rights and would not withstand a court challenge", while a "Liberal Cabinet Minister" supports the policy, the natural supposition is that the *source* of the "froth and indignation" is *within* Quebec.
Unless of course the Post made all that stuff up.
Why is the Post reporting the story? Why is it reporting the story in such terms? Why has there been a reference to the Language police in the title? Why haven't the elements I mentioned (which one can easily find in La Presse, which first broke out the story) been included in th Post's article?
Read the story in both French and English: the difference in tone is readily apparent.
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 28, 2011, 05:07:03 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 28, 2011, 05:02:22 PM
I'm referring to the contents of the article, not to Tim posting it or Viper bringing his usual clarity and insight to it.
When I see on the one hand a "prominent Montreal civil rights lawyer" saying that the policy is " is a clear violation of students' rights and would not withstand a court challenge", while a "Liberal Cabinet Minister" supports the policy, the natural supposition is that the *source* of the "froth and indignation" is *within* Quebec.
Unless of course the Post made all that stuff up.
Why is the Post reporting the story? Why is it reporting the story in such terms? Why has there been a reference to the Language police in the title? Why haven't the elements I mentioned (which one can easily find in La Presse, which first broke out the story) been included in th Post's article?
Read the story in both French and English: the difference in tone is readily apparent.
As for the title - you are mistaking Timmay's thread title for that of the published article (hint: there is no reference to "language police" in the title
of the article). The story's only mention of "language police" is a direct quotation from the spokesperson for the policy, denying that there will be any!
Title of article: "No recess from French as Montreal schools to scan playground chatter"
Timmay's Thread Title: "Language Police to Force Children to Speak French During Recess"
As to the rest - it's a news story in Quebec with reactions from Cabinet Ministers and prominent civil rights lawyers. It is clearly not a "nothing" of a story in Quebec. The "tone" you are, apparently, getting from Timmay.
Edit: as for the "items that you mentioned", the only one the Post article did not mention was the fact that the school board commissioner was Hungarian-born - hardly a seminal point.
Your quote:
QuoteI'll just note in passing that this eventual policy was grounded in a survey made which comprised more than 2/3 of allophone parents who supported it at 70%, and that one of the school board commissioner who spoke to the press in favour of it was Hungarian-born Akos Verboczy.
The article:
QuoteThe school board's statistics show 53% of its students have a mother tongue other than French. A poll this fall of 811 parents found 70% agreed with imposing French at all times.
Your argument that the story is biased by leaving out vital facts is not persuasive.
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 28, 2011, 04:25:27 PM
@ CC: See Barrister's answer. Same people. Hence the reason why De Courcy underlined the fact that there would be no language police, despite the NP's title. In fact, it is pretty clear that it is more akin to a «school pledge» than to the kind of repressive apparatus the NP is hinting at (shocking!).
I am unaware of anything like a "school pledge" which requires enforcement through legislation.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 28, 2011, 05:17:33 PM
I am unaware of anything like a "school pledge" which requires enforcement through legislation.
:mellow: It's not legislation. It's a school board internal policy.
Quote from: Malthus on November 28, 2011, 05:02:22 PMWhen I see on the one hand a "prominent Montreal civil rights lawyer" saying that the policy is " is a clear violation of students' rights and would not withstand a court challenge", while a "Liberal Cabinet Minister" supports the policy, the natural supposition is that the *source* of the "froth and indignation" is *within* Quebec.
Unless of course the Post made all that stuff up.
Plenty of froth in this thread :)
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 28, 2011, 04:39:21 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 28, 2011, 04:27:49 PM
De Laussat left c.a. 1831. French was still a vibrant language in Louisiana at the time.
Nitpick: Laussat left in 1804, not long after the ceremony which transfered Louisiana to the US (and not long after the ceremony which had previously transfered it back to France...). And yes, French was very vibrant both in 1804 (due to the influx of planter-refugees from Haiti) and in 1831 (due to the arrival of the new wave of French immigrants, the «Foreign French»). The turning point was set in the late 1840s, with the end of the Civil War marking the decline of political control by Francophones, despite rising number of French immigrants (there were still more from other parts of the world, who decided rather to learn English... hmm...).
Just joking about the rather unusual dialects spoken in Louisiana, not making a serious point.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 28, 2011, 05:41:37 PM
Just joking about the rather unusual dialects spoken in Louisiana, not making a serious point.
I know. :)
Didn't think you were frothing either.
Quote from: Jacob on November 28, 2011, 05:40:39 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 28, 2011, 05:02:22 PMWhen I see on the one hand a "prominent Montreal civil rights lawyer" saying that the policy is " is a clear violation of students' rights and would not withstand a court challenge", while a "Liberal Cabinet Minister" supports the policy, the natural supposition is that the *source* of the "froth and indignation" is *within* Quebec.
Unless of course the Post made all that stuff up.
Plenty of froth in this thread :)
Well, that's true enough. When Oex assigns blame for a Timmay title to the English Canadian media as a whole, as if Timmay worked for the Post* you know there is
some froth. Not to mention Viper's vapourings.
However, the notion that this story is a creation of the English Canadian media is, you know, patently false.
*Mind you, in some cases that would be an improvement ...
Incidentally, I've come to the conclusion that Canada should do it's best to destroy French in Quebec. Speakers of Germanic languages are badly outnumbered in the Western Hemisphere by Romance speakers, if we want to keep our cultural distinctiveness we must keep the Romance languages out. At least in Canada. In Texas, they can speak all the Spanish they want.
I don't see the big deal.
The Commissioner has made a finding that lots of children in the school system are having a difficult time learning French. Putting aside all the language politics, it is unquestionably a legitimate concern of a school system that children aren't learning effectively enough with respect to a subject on the core curriculum. It is also unobjectionable that using a language in a social setting will facilitate language learning - this is the premise behind immersion programs, language "lunch tables" etc. Recess is in fact school time and there is no reason why school officials shouldn't seek to further pedagogical ends by structuring recess time accordingly. The only valid objection I can think of is that this intervention will be perceieved by the children as intrusive and thus backfire, but that is an objection to efficacy, not theory.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 29, 2011, 10:14:49 AM
I don't see the big deal.
The Commissioner has made a finding that lots of children in the school system are having a difficult time learning French. Putting aside all the language politics, it is unquestionably a legitimate concern of a school system that children aren't learning effectively enough with respect to a subject on the core curriculum. It is also unobjectionable that using a language in a social setting will facilitate language learning - this is the premise behind immersion programs, language "lunch tables" etc. Recess is in fact school time and there is no reason why school officials shouldn't seek to further pedagogical ends by structuring recess time accordingly. The only valid objection I can think of is that this intervention will be perceieved by the children as intrusive and thus backfire, but that is an objection to efficacy, not theory.
I don't think anyone is objecting to the theory of it working. I think they are objecting to the intrusiveness of forcing children to speak a specific language even when they are essentially relaxing during recess.
Quote from: garbon on November 29, 2011, 10:21:30 AM
I don't think anyone is objecting to the theory of it working. I think they are objecting to the intrusiveness of forcing children to speak a specific language even when they are essentially relaxing during recess.
Obviously the people who actually have an interest in the policy, the school board and the parents, do not object they support the policy...indeed they created it. It seems odd to sit around worried what some local school board someplace does. At least they are not banning evolution or something.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 28, 2011, 05:17:33 PM
I am unaware of anything like a "school pledge" which requires enforcement through legislation.
Huh? You honestly have never heard of a school board with a policy of having kids say a pledge? I was required to do it in school.
Quote from: Malthus on November 28, 2011, 04:58:27 PM
Unless you are stating that "prominent Montreal civil rights lawyer" Julius Grey and "Cabinet Minister" Christine St-Pierre (both, I understand, from the Province of Quebec) are both really Timmay ... :hmm:
Julius Grey is your equivalent for Quebec. He sees oppression of minorities everywhere and makes a crusade to defend them, for the right price.
I believe he was a member of Alliance Quebec, back in the days, or took their silly cases in front of all possible courts.
Christine St-Pierre simply said she supported the decision. I don't see indignation here.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 28, 2011, 04:16:46 PM
Yes normally you have one or two people watching a whole school yard - hardly able to be at a distance to listen in to ensure that the french only rule is being followed. Imagine how much it would cost to have enough monitors out to enforce this rule.
Creating a rule which is unenforceable brings such a system into disrepute.
Do you actually know the extent and procedures in which they are going to try to impliment this policy or are you just making shit up and then getting outraged about what you imagine?
Quote from: Valmy on November 29, 2011, 10:25:20 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 29, 2011, 10:21:30 AM
I don't think anyone is objecting to the theory of it working. I think they are objecting to the intrusiveness of forcing children to speak a specific language even when they are essentially relaxing during recess.
Obviously the people who actually have an interest in the policy, the school board and the parents, do not object they support the policy...indeed they created it. It seems odd to sit around worried what some local school board someplace does. At least they are not banning evolution or something.
Yes because we can never discuss events that have no impact on us. :mellow:
Quote from: Malthus on November 29, 2011, 09:25:06 AM
However, the notion that this story is a creation of the English Canadian media is, you know, patently false.
It is a creation of the English Canadian media. It's what we called a non story. Yet, indignation there is, from the english speaking community of this forum + Martinus, but that was to be expected. I'm only surprised Raz hasn't posted yet.
EDIT: indeed, the nutjob posted in the thread. I think he should be deported to Poland and forced to live with Marty, these two would get along well together.
Quote from: garbon on November 29, 2011, 10:33:35 AM
Yes because we can never discuss events that have no impact on us. :mellow:
Of course you can. I can also discuss my opinions on the discussion is that ok with you?
Quote from: viper37 on November 29, 2011, 10:30:27 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 28, 2011, 04:58:27 PM
Unless you are stating that "prominent Montreal civil rights lawyer" Julius Grey and "Cabinet Minister" Christine St-Pierre (both, I understand, from the Province of Quebec) are both really Timmay ... :hmm:
Julius Grey is your equivalent for Quebec. He sees oppression of minorities everywhere and makes a crusade to defend them, for the right price.
I believe he was a member of Alliance Quebec, back in the days, or took their silly cases in front of all possible courts.
Christine St-Pierre simply said she supported the decision. I don't see indignation here.
The point is that (a) they are both from Quebec, (b) characterizing a recess policy as a 'threat to civil rights' clearly qualifies as indignation, and (c) normally, one does not consult a Cabinet Minister over a recess policy! The fact that the school saw the necessity of doing so indicates that 'frothing' is going on. :lol:
It is obviously being made 'a big deal of' in Quebec itself, it is not a story that is the product of the English Canadian media, and characterizing it as such is simply ... wrong.
Quote from: Valmy on November 29, 2011, 10:34:50 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 29, 2011, 10:33:35 AM
Yes because we can never discuss events that have no impact on us. :mellow:
Of course you can. I can also discuss my opinions on the discussion is that ok with you?
Apparently not. You've already told me that we shouldn't be having the discussion in the first place.
Quote from: garbon on November 29, 2011, 10:38:55 AMApparently not. You've already told me that we shouldn't be having the discussion in the first place.
Sounds like you're blowing Valmy's comments out of proportion.
Quote from: viper37 on November 29, 2011, 10:34:09 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 29, 2011, 09:25:06 AM
However, the notion that this story is a creation of the English Canadian media is, you know, patently false.
It is a creation of the English Canadian media. It's what we called a non story. Yet, indignation there is, from the english speaking community of this forum + Martinus, but that was to be expected. I'm only surprised Raz hasn't posted yet.
EDIT: indeed, the nutjob posted in the thread. I think he should be deported to Poland and forced to live with Marty, these two would get along well together.
So, am I to understand that Oex was mistaken or lying when he said that La Presse "first broke the story"? :hmm:
Quote
Why haven't the elements I mentioned (which one can easily find in La Presse, which first broke out the story) been included in th Post's article?
Or perhaps La Presse is really an English Canadian newspaper? I always thought it was a Montreal-based French-language paper, but I can be educated otherwise.
Quote from: Jacob on November 29, 2011, 10:41:54 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 29, 2011, 10:38:55 AMApparently not. You've already told me that we shouldn't be having the discussion in the first place.
Sounds like you're blowing Valmy's comments out of proportion.
Not anymore than the suggestion that those objecting to this policy are "sit[ting] around worried what some local school board someplace does."
Quote from: Malthus on November 29, 2011, 10:37:51 AM
normally, one does not consult a Cabinet Minister over a recess policy!
Normally one doesn't, but it might reach that level if a "prominent" plaintiff's attorney starts threatening constitutional challenges. Or if a national newspaper calls for comment.
The article doesn't make clear exactly what prompted the minister's involvement.
Quote from: garbon on November 29, 2011, 10:47:02 AM
Not anymore than the suggestion that those objecting to this policy are "sit[ting] around worried what some local school board someplace does."
Is that an outrageous suggestion? I mean the school boards only have so much power to really be coercive.
Quote from: Valmy on November 29, 2011, 10:53:58 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 29, 2011, 10:47:02 AM
Not anymore than the suggestion that those objecting to this policy are "sit[ting] around worried what some local school board someplace does."
Is that an outrageous suggestion? I mean the school boards only have so much power to really be coercive.
I don't think any of us are actively worrying. I think it is okay to find such a policy repugnant as well as those who seek to excuse said policy. Nothing in that involves much energy, time or effort.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 29, 2011, 10:47:30 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 29, 2011, 10:37:51 AM
normally, one does not consult a Cabinet Minister over a recess policy!
Normally one doesn't, but it might reach that level if a "prominent" plaintiff's attorney starts threatening constitutional challenges. Or if a national newspaper calls for comment.
The article doesn't make clear exactly what prompted the minister's involvement.
Certainly. My point is simply that the locus of this controversy is in Quebec, not outside of it, as both Cabinet Minister and "prominent" plaintiff's attorney making threatening noises are, both of them, from Quebec, and the story was first 'broken' by a major Montreal newpaper (which, moreover, is a
French-language newspaper.
What I'm combatting is the bizzare, counter-factual paranoid fantasy that the story is purely a 'creation of the English Canadian media'. It is not. It may or may nor be a tempest in a teapot, but the English Canadian news services are merely picking up a story reported on in Quebec.
Quote from: Valmy on November 29, 2011, 10:53:58 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 29, 2011, 10:47:02 AM
Not anymore than the suggestion that those objecting to this policy are "sit[ting] around worried what some local school board someplace does."
Is that an outrageous suggestion? I mean the school boards only have so much power to really be coercive.
School boards doing silly things are often news. Think of how much we in Canada have heard about US school boards requiring Creationism be taught, or banning kids from carrying Asprin. That affects my life not at all - with the exception that it indicates, to some extent, the general tenor of the society that approves of such activities.
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 28, 2011, 05:37:27 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 28, 2011, 05:17:33 PM
I am unaware of anything like a "school pledge" which requires enforcement through legislation.
:mellow: It's not legislation. It's a school board internal policy.
The only reason this is an issue is because the policy is backed by the coercive power of Bill 101. If not for the legislation people could simply vote with their feet and leave schools that have this "rule". From the article.
QuoteQuebec's Charter of the French Language, Bill 101, requires children of immigrants to attend French-language schools. This has led to generations of allophone Quebecers – those whose mother tongue is neither French nor English – who are perfectly at ease in French. Up until now, the rules have applied inside the classroom only.
Quote from: Valmy on November 29, 2011, 10:27:23 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 28, 2011, 05:17:33 PM
I am unaware of anything like a "school pledge" which requires enforcement through legislation.
Huh? You honestly have never heard of a school board with a policy of having kids say a pledge? I was required to do it in school.
You do a lot of messed up things in the US. But that is beside the point.
Quote from: viper37 on November 28, 2011, 04:21:26 PM
At one point, it was justified to preserve the English language. But it seems that when it's to protect the French language, and help kids succeed at their French exams by offering total immersion, it's wrong.
I would say that it was stupid either way. You appear to be offended that "it's wrong" when done to "protect the French language" - are you equally offended that it is now considered to have been wrong to "preserve the English language?" You can't have it both ways.
QuoteConditional is used in the French text, everywhere, from the title to the last bits of text (http://www.cyberpresse.ca/actualites/quebec-canada/education/201111/22/01-4470628-le-francais-pourrait-etre-obligatoire-partout-a-lecole.php)
That's a different article, and written earlier. It doesn't have the statement in question.
QuoteWe were required to speak proper french in elementary school, even outside class.
What has changed is that in Montreal, french speakers are moving out of the city and immigrants are moving in. Immigrants don't speak French for the most part. They speak Portuguese, Spanish, Arabic, Chinese, Vietnamese, etc. Mostly arabic nowadays.
This is why many people see a problem with Montreal, where French is regressing rather than progressing. And students have an harder time succeeding at french exams because it's their 3rd language.
You're still not explaining why this would work for you back in the "olden days" but wouldn't work for students today.
I can understand the argument that "this is dumb because they won't have the resources to enforce it." I don't understand the argument that "this is dumb because, even though they had the resources to make it work when I was in school, they won't have the resources to make it work today."
QuoteBy your definition US Southern States are not modern:
Not just by my definition.
QuoteNo, I do not mind. Historically, French would have developped differently had it not been forbidden everywhere. There might have been 50% French population in this country instead of 23% and on the decline.
What do you blame for the persistence of the 23%? Not enough beatings, or insufficiently severe beatings?
QuoteCorporal punishment appears creepy to me, yet it's still in use in the US.
Public beheadings appear creepy to me, and yet it's still in use in Saudi Arabia.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 29, 2011, 12:16:12 PM
The only reason this is an issue is because the policy is backed by the coercive power of Bill 101. If not for the legislation people could simply vote with their feet and leave schools that have this "rule". From the article.
70% of the parents approve of the proposed policy change.
They can still leave schools that have this "rule", they are free to move outside of Montreal or send their kids to a private school if they disagree with a decision, that ultimately could be in effect by next fall.
Otherwise, they could... well, it's a shocking tought, really, but, it's been to happen, but they could actually vote. Yes, shocking tought, really, but anyone can present itself as a school comissionner to influence the policies of the school board. And then, people vote for their favourite commissionner. And these favourite commissionner simply overturn this "oppressive" policy, or simply don't suggest it in the first place.
Now, if that 70% of the parents is not a real figure, you'd know soon enought, because it would be easy to change.
No bill 101 involved. Easily changed. Unnecessary drama from English Canada. Again. Sigh.
Quote from: Malthus on November 29, 2011, 11:01:26 AM
Certainly. My point is simply that the locus of this controversy is in Quebec, not outside of it, as both Cabinet Minister and "prominent" plaintiff's attorney making threatening noises are, both of them, from Quebec, and the story was first 'broken' by a major Montreal newpaper (which, moreover, is a French-language newspaper.
What I'm combatting is the bizzare, counter-factual paranoid fantasy that the story is purely a 'creation of the English Canadian media'. It is not. It may or may nor be a tempest in a teapot, but the English Canadian news services are merely picking up a story reported on in Quebec.
But that wasn't the point at all. Language issues are politically charged issues in Quebec - that's a given, and not much of a surprise that it makes news. Which is not to say that any politically charged issue is by necessity a controversy. The frothing, and the tone of the NP (Tim's inane headline notwitstanding) is not quite "simply reporting" however. The NP was basically doing exactly what Tim was doing: fishing for usual, self-congratulatory indignation. That is all. Again, I urge you to compare the tone of the articles, and show me the hysteria, the froth, the indigination by reading what's being written in La Presse, or Le Devoir.
Oh, wait. You can't.
Quote from: viper37 on November 29, 2011, 01:37:10 PM
70% of the parents approve of the proposed policy change.
The interesting thing about rights like freedom of expression is that they are important to protect even if the majority think the expressive right in question isnt all that important.
Quote from: grumbler on November 29, 2011, 01:27:44 PM
I would say that it was stupid either way. You appear to be offended that "it's wrong" when done to "protect the French language" - are you equally offended that it is now considered to have been wrong to "preserve the English language?" You can't have it both ways.
I'm offended that it's considered "good" or "normal" when done to teach english but "wrong" when done to promote french education.
QuoteThat's a different article, and written earlier. It doesn't have the statement in question.
Yes, it's a different article, duh, that's the point, no? The NP is wrong, as usual.
Quoting the NP about Quebec is the same as quoting Fox News' web site about Obama's policies.
Quote
You're still not explaining why this would work for you back in the "olden days" but wouldn't work for students today.
1, the policy is very similar, except it's now aimed at non french speakers
2, as I told you a dozen times, I'm from a small town, with a small school, with 99,5% french speaking population around. Foreign languages were not an issue for us. 2-3 non native french speakers out of over 2-300 was not a big deal. The private high school I attended had about 600 students, the public one around 800. As far as I can remember in high school... there might have been one girl born in Ontario, but everyone else was born&raised in Quebec, in French. Language, not an isssue in my time.
What was an issue was the way we spoke french. I figure there has to be the same in English, with "proper english" and "slang english", and at a written exam on English, you have to use the correct form of english, right?
So, it was the same for us. We had to speak proper french outside of the class, some words were verbotten, of course, like any swearing, but speaking englihs or swaheli wasn't a problem since no one spoke those languages.
Quote
I can understand the argument that "this is dumb because they won't have the resources to enforce it." I don't understand the argument that "this is dumb because, even though they had the resources to make it work when I was in school, they won't have the resources to make it work today."
Ah I see. They lacked the resources back in my time too, to enforce propre french everywhere. They nonetheless try. I think it is dumb, because I failed to see how it affected performance at French written tests. Those guys I knew who didn't speak&write proper french back then still have trouble with proper french today.
Quote
What do you blame for the persistence of the 23%? Not enough beatings, or insufficiently severe beatings?
Having our own province. There's no French majority outside of Quebec. Under Canadian constitutions, provinces are 100% responsible for lower (pre-college) education, like the districts seem responsible for education in Texas.
Quote
Public beheadings appear creepy to me, and yet it's still in use in Saudi Arabia.
Who among us, Languishites would judge Saudi Arabia a modern&civilized country? Would you say more or less than judge the US as a modern&civilized country?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 29, 2011, 01:48:35 PM
The interesting thing about rights like freedom of expression is that they are important to protect even if the majority think the expressive right in question isnt all that important.
so kids should be allowed to swear in school, insult their teachers, draw nazi symbols on their books because it's freedom of expression, the same as in the adult world outside of school? Please, let's be serious.
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 29, 2011, 01:41:44 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 29, 2011, 11:01:26 AM
Certainly. My point is simply that the locus of this controversy is in Quebec, not outside of it, as both Cabinet Minister and "prominent" plaintiff's attorney making threatening noises are, both of them, from Quebec, and the story was first 'broken' by a major Montreal newpaper (which, moreover, is a French-language newspaper.
What I'm combatting is the bizzare, counter-factual paranoid fantasy that the story is purely a 'creation of the English Canadian media'. It is not. It may or may nor be a tempest in a teapot, but the English Canadian news services are merely picking up a story reported on in Quebec.
But that wasn't the point at all. Language issues are politically charged issues in Quebec - that's a given, and not much of a surprise that it makes news. Which is not to say that any politically charged issue is by necessity a controversy. The frothing, and the tone of the NP (Tim's inane headline notwitstanding) is not quite "simply reporting" however. The NP was basically doing exactly what Tim was doing: fishing for usual, self-congratulatory indignation. That is all. Again, I urge you to compare the tone of the articles, and show me the hysteria, the froth, the indigination by reading what's being written in La Presse, or Le Devoir.
Oh, wait. You can't.
No froth evident in this post. :D
Quote from: garbon on November 29, 2011, 01:54:43 PM
No froth evident in this post. :D
well, if someone derived it's opinion of the US solely from Fox News, I know a few members here who'd be annoyed.
Quote from: viper37 on November 29, 2011, 01:57:23 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 29, 2011, 01:54:43 PM
No froth evident in this post. :D
well, if someone derived it's opinion of the US solely from Fox News, I know a few members here who'd be annoyed.
Marti does that and I don't think we care.
Quote from: viper37 on November 29, 2011, 01:49:40 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 29, 2011, 01:48:35 PM
The interesting thing about rights like freedom of expression is that they are important to protect even if the majority think the expressive right in question isnt all that important.
so kids should be allowed to swear in school, insult their teachers, draw nazi symbols on their books because it's freedom of expression, the same as in the adult world outside of school? Please, let's be serious.
It is most revealing that you think speaking a language different then french is similar to drawing a nazi symbol in their books. If we are to be serious perhaps you could do better than try to explain away a clear infringement of legitimate expressive rights by a tyranny of the majority argument.
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 29, 2011, 01:41:44 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 29, 2011, 11:01:26 AM
Certainly. My point is simply that the locus of this controversy is in Quebec, not outside of it, as both Cabinet Minister and "prominent" plaintiff's attorney making threatening noises are, both of them, from Quebec, and the story was first 'broken' by a major Montreal newpaper (which, moreover, is a French-language newspaper.
What I'm combatting is the bizzare, counter-factual paranoid fantasy that the story is purely a 'creation of the English Canadian media'. It is not. It may or may nor be a tempest in a teapot, but the English Canadian news services are merely picking up a story reported on in Quebec.
But that wasn't the point at all. Language issues are politically charged issues in Quebec - that's a given, and not much of a surprise that it makes news. Which is not to say that any politically charged issue is by necessity a controversy. The frothing, and the tone of the NP (Tim's inane headline notwitstanding) is not quite "simply reporting" however. The NP was basically doing exactly what Tim was doing: fishing for usual, self-congratulatory indignation. That is all. Again, I urge you to compare the tone of the articles, and show me the hysteria, the froth, the indigination by reading what's being written in La Presse, or Le Devoir.
Oh, wait. You can't.
Once again, I point out that the details you *thought* were in the NP article - like the "language police" headline - were *not*, and the details you thought were *not* in the article - like the percentage of allophones, and the pecentage of parents who approved the measure - *were*.
I suggest that the "tone" of "self-congratulatory indignation" you make much of is mostly your subjective analysis. You are seeing what you want to see, and not seeing what you don't.
In fact, the "tone" is reasonably neutral - each "side" is given its say by quotes from spokespersons: the school's "side" is, in fact, given the last word. The fact that the parents approve by a big majority is (contrary to what you noted earlier) specifically stated - 70%. If there are any factual errors in the story, I have yet to hear them stated.
To my mind, getting all indignant about a newspaper in Ontario republishing a story published in Quebec is exactly the sort of "frothy indignation" you were decrying - particularly when, as here, you get the details of that article wrong, in both cases to make the "indignity" out as being worse than it is.
Whatever.
I think I've had enough of Languish for a while.
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 29, 2011, 02:41:29 PM
Whatever.
I think I've had enough of Languish for a while.
You always say this after you've had an argument with Malthus et al about French vs English.
Maybe you should refrain from participating in those ;) Cette bataille là, on la gagnera jamais.
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 29, 2011, 02:41:29 PM
Whatever.
I think I've had enough of Languish for a while.
:lol:
You know Languish has reached an all time low when someone as moderate and even tempered as Oex is driven away by the hypocritical shenanigans of our resident Canadians. But then again most of those are lawyers - thus afflicted with the compulsion for sophistry inherent in the breed.
G.
Yeah, Oex got a couple things wrong about the article and Malthus is engaging in sophistry for pointing out his errors. :rolleyes:
The one thing you did get right Grallon is we are all Canadian.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 29, 2011, 02:43:56 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 29, 2011, 02:41:29 PM
Whatever.
I think I've had enough of Languish for a while.
You always say this after you've had an argument with Malthus et al about French vs English.
Maybe you should refrain from participating in those ;) Cette bataille là, on la gagnera jamais.
Indeed. Whoopty-merde.
I can't see any problem with this to be honest :mellow:
Quote from: Grallon on November 29, 2011, 03:10:30 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 29, 2011, 02:41:29 PM
Whatever.
I think I've had enough of Languish for a while.
:lol:
You know Languish has reached an all time low when someone as moderate and even tempered as Oex is driven away by the hypocritical shenanigans of our resident Canadians. But then again most of those are lawyers - thus afflicted with the compulsion for sophistry inherent in the breed.
G.
Oex is a great guy, and even tempered may even be pretty accurate, but I would not call him moderate.
And Languish is no lower or higher than it has ever been - and this thread certainly is no where even in the ballpark of as bad as Languish gets.
Still, if these kinds of discussions are upsetting enough that it makes one not enjoy the forum, a break is not a terrible idea. I don't really get why people don't just not participate in discussions that upset them though, rather than letting themselves get all upset. YMMV and all that I guess.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 29, 2011, 03:20:55 PM
I can't see any problem with this to be honest :mellow:
With the discussion, or with Oex maybe leaving, or with French Canadian teachers hitting students in the back if they are heard speaking something other than French during their free time?
Quote from: Berkut on November 29, 2011, 03:24:01 PMWith the discussion, or with Oex maybe leaving, or with French Canadian teachers hitting students in the back if they are heard speaking something other than French during their free time?
I just read the opening article.
I think it would be the sort of thing that helps integration of immigrants into the community. Not only that but by trying to enforce this it'll make learning French (or in London English) easier for the kids. Immersion is by some distance the best way learning, rather than it being that is simply for the class room while at home and amont friends people speak totally different language. Obviously the schools can't change how people behave at home but this is an area where they have control. Also I think it's a good thing to provide a lingua franca for children from different immigrant communities to communicate in. If you're one of three or four Urdu speaking kids in a predominately Bengali speaking school then you're going to end up cliquing based on language which I don't think is a good thing. I don't like it when schools inadvertantly or deliberately reinforce divisions in society. Enforcing French, or English in London, as the language of the school in the playground and the classroom seems a positive thing.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 29, 2011, 03:37:13 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 29, 2011, 03:24:01 PMWith the discussion, or with Oex maybe leaving, or with French Canadian teachers hitting students in the back if they are heard speaking something other than French during their free time?
I just read the opening article.
I think it would be the sort of thing that helps integration of immigrants into the community. Not only that but by trying to enforce this it'll make learning French (or in London English) easier for the kids. Immersion is by some distance the best way learning, rather than it being that is simply for the class room while at home and amont friends people speak totally different language. Obviously the schools can't change how people behave at home but this is an area where they have control. Also I think it's a good thing to provide a lingua franca for children from different immigrant communities to communicate in. If you're one of three or four Urdu speaking kids in a predominately Bengali speaking school then you're going to end up cliquing based on language which I don't think is a good thing. I don't like it when schools inadvertantly or deliberately reinforce divisions in society. Enforcing French, or English in London, as the language of the school in the playground and the classroom seems a positive thing.
I don't really disagree.
But I bet you would hear howls of outrage if this happened anywhere other than Quebec.
I could imagine teachers trying to force people in the SW US to not speak Spanish...that would be a hoot.
I'm pretty sure that in Western Canada, immigrant children would be 'encouraged' to speak in English, so that they get practice.
French is special of course since it is a language actually taught (plus we always get sensitive to French language issues), but anything else would probably be discouraged.
Quote from: Grallon on November 29, 2011, 03:10:30 PM
:lol:
You know Languish has reached an all time low when someone as moderate and even tempered as Oex is driven away by the hypocritical shenanigans of our resident Canadians. But then again most of those are lawyers - thus afflicted with the compulsion for sophistry inherent in the breed.
G.
Well, on the plus side, I cannot think of anything I could possibly say that would make you leave. ;)
Quote from: Berkut on November 29, 2011, 03:43:21 PMBut I bet you would hear howls of outrage if this happened anywhere other than Quebec.
Well there seem to have been some howls in this thread :lol:
I think this is more controversial because it's Quebec than it would be if it were, say, London. I've said before that my impression is that the Anglo-Canadian press seem to have a pre-determined template of story about Quebec and they force something like this into it.
On the other hand part of the issue could be that the assumption you automatically have with Quebec stories is that it's against English. When, in fact, my impression - from very far away - is that Montreal is one of the great immigrant cities of North America.
QuoteI could imagine teachers trying to force people in the SW US to not speak Spanish...that would be a hoot.
I can't see it happening as government policy in England but I think some London schools would do it. I suppose there's an issue about not targetting a specific language group. If you're in a school in the SW US, with, say, 80% of students speaking Spanish then I think this sort of rule is different from if you're running a school with several different language groups in the same playground.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 29, 2011, 03:37:13 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 29, 2011, 03:24:01 PMWith the discussion, or with Oex maybe leaving, or with French Canadian teachers hitting students in the back if they are heard speaking something other than French during their free time?
I just read the opening article.
I think it would be the sort of thing that helps integration of immigrants into the community. Not only that but by trying to enforce this it'll make learning French (or in London English) easier for the kids. Immersion is by some distance the best way learning, rather than it being that is simply for the class room while at home and amont friends people speak totally different language. Obviously the schools can't change how people behave at home but this is an area where they have control. Also I think it's a good thing to provide a lingua franca for children from different immigrant communities to communicate in. If you're one of three or four Urdu speaking kids in a predominately Bengali speaking school then you're going to end up cliquing based on language which I don't think is a good thing. I don't like it when schools inadvertantly or deliberately reinforce divisions in society. Enforcing French, or English in London, as the language of the school in the playground and the classroom seems a positive thing.
The whole thing is really a tempest in a tea-pot. How long is recess anyway, 15 minutes? Is having language monitored for those 15 minutes really going to be a big deal, either way?
The whole thing is purely symbolic - language politics as usual in that province.
Quote from: Berkut on November 29, 2011, 03:22:54 PMOex is a great guy, and even tempered may even be pretty accurate, but I would not call him moderate.
Who would you call moderate?
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 29, 2011, 03:59:18 PMWell there seem to have been some howls in this thread :lol:
I think this is more controversial because it's Quebec than it would be if it were, say, London. I've said before that my impression is that the Anglo-Canadian press seem to have a pre-determined template of story about Quebec and they force something like this into it.
Yeah that how it looks to me as well.
Quote from: Jacob on November 29, 2011, 04:00:27 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 29, 2011, 03:22:54 PMOex is a great guy, and even tempered may even be pretty accurate, but I would not call him moderate.
Who would you call moderate?
Other than me?
I'll have to get back to you on that. :P
MIM is my prototypical moderate.
Teach. Moderation is generally apathy toward the political process.
I am a Farist.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 29, 2011, 03:59:18 PM
I think this is more controversial because it's Quebec than it would be if it were, say, London. I've said before that my impression is that the Anglo-Canadian press seem to have a pre-determined template of story about Quebec and they force something like this into it.
On the other hand part of the issue could be that the assumption you automatically have with Quebec stories is that it's against English. When, in fact, my impression - from very far away - is that Montreal is one of the great immigrant cities of North America.
That may well be so in general, but this story is hardly an example of it. As stated above, it was a news story in the (French) press in Montreal first, that got picked up in the Anglo press.
Quote from: Berkut on November 29, 2011, 04:11:45 PMOther than me?
I'll have to get back to you on that. :P
That's what I figured :lol:
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 29, 2011, 02:43:56 PM
You always say this after you've had an argument with Malthus et al about French vs English.
It probably owes more to the fact that Languish gets on my nerve in recurring cycles, and that Canadian politics are now perhaps the only threads I participate in. Plus I am currently overworked and tired. Though I still think that Malthus - whom I appreciate - takes an awfully smug tone in these usual debates. :P Add to the fact that I more and more subscribe to what Mihali wrote a few days ago; and I still mean what I said when I thought that Languish was reactionary. I'd explain at more length if I wasn't so tired, and if I knew that my words wouldn't be needlessly twisted; that might have make for an interesting discussion.
@Berkut: you are right. I don't think I am a moderate. But one can express one's conviction with moderate words, I hope :) But I think Jacob's point - that you hold yourself as a consumate moderate, and therefore judge people by their distance to your own position, holds more than a kernel of truth... ;)
Anyway, have fun. :)
I hope you come back soon Oex.
Quote from: Berkut on November 29, 2011, 03:24:01 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 29, 2011, 03:20:55 PM
I can't see any problem with this to be honest :mellow:
With the discussion, or with Oex maybe leaving, or with French Canadian teachers hitting students in the back if they are heard speaking something other than French during their free time?
:lmfao:
Don't ever change, Berky-poo.
Quote from: Malthus on November 29, 2011, 03:59:55 PM
The whole thing is purely symbolic - language politics as usual in that province.
Fair and balanced as usual, Malt. :)
T'en fait pas poulette. J'tiens les rosbifs occupés en attendant que tu reviennes. :frog:
Mmmm roast beef
Speak white.
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 29, 2011, 08:49:05 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 29, 2011, 02:43:56 PM
You always say this after you've had an argument with Malthus et al about French vs English.
It probably owes more to the fact that Languish gets on my nerve in recurring cycles, and that Canadian politics are now perhaps the only threads I participate in. Plus I am currently overworked and tired. Though I still think that Malthus - whom I appreciate - takes an awfully smug tone in these usual debates. :P Add to the fact that I more and more subscribe to what Mihali wrote a few days ago; and I still mean what I said when I thought that Languish was reactionary. I'd explain at more length if I wasn't so tired, and if I knew that my words wouldn't be needlessly twisted; that might have make for an interesting discussion.
Well, I'm not reactionary. You splitter.
And Mal, for all his fine points, and he has many, of course (he's one of my favorite people here) can be smug about
anything.
Also he never gave me any feedback on whether I was interpreting the PMPRB guidelines correctly. <_<
You know what he said so you can't tell him to speak white :P
Quote from: HVC on November 29, 2011, 09:38:52 PM
You know what he said so you can't tell him to speak white :P
Quote from: ZoupaT'en fait pas poulette. J'tiens les rosbifs occupés en attendant que tu reviennes.
Something about not being a chicken and occupying the roasts until Oex returns.
Lol close eniugh.
Ide, what's with all the posting in French lately? Francais est la langue des homosexuelles.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2011, 04:25:30 PM
Teach. Moderation is generally apathy toward the political process.
Election night's certainly a lot less fun when you don't have a team to root for. :hmm:
Quote from: Caliga on November 29, 2011, 10:56:43 PM
Ide, what's with all the posting in French lately? Francais est la langue des homosexuelles.
Quelle horror! :o
Quote from: Caliga on November 29, 2011, 10:56:43 PM
Ide, what's with all the posting in French lately? Francais est la langue des homosexuelles.
Trying to learn it, in my customary desultory manner.
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 29, 2011, 08:49:05 PM
@Berkut: you are right. I don't think I am a moderate. But one can express one's conviction with moderate words, I hope :)
I agree completely, and while I don't think you are a moderate, I do appreciate that your are one of the more even toned and pleasant posters on Languish.
I am almost the opposite - I am rather moderate in outlook, and not all that moderate in tone at all.
Quote from: Malthus on November 29, 2011, 04:37:21 PMThat may well be so in general, but this story is hardly an example of it. As stated above, it was a news story in the (French) press in Montreal first, that got picked up in the Anglo press.
That's nothing to do with what I said though. This is a good local news story - especially with the court challenge - so it's normal for the Montreal press to report it. I think it could be an interesting kick off for a national piece on immigration and schools.
What actually happened was that the Anglo press took this decent local story and, as I say, squeezed it into the pre-fit template of Quebecois stories. Look at the judgements in first sentence alone: 'The playgrounds, hallways and cafeterias of Quebec's largest school board will soon be French-only zones as authorities move to silence other languages, even during recess.'
Quote from: Ideologue on November 29, 2011, 09:38:39 PM
And Mal, for all his fine points, and he has many, of course (he's one of my favorite people here) can be smug about anything
Malthus has many fine points :cheers:
Yeah, I don't mean it as a slam.
If it were a slam, I'd call him a stroller-sympathizing son of a bitch. :P
Quote from: Caliga on November 29, 2011, 10:56:43 PM
Ide, what's with all the posting in French lately? Francais est la langue des homosexuelles.
Great, lesbians now. :lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 30, 2011, 12:40:35 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 29, 2011, 04:37:21 PMThat may well be so in general, but this story is hardly an example of it. As stated above, it was a news story in the (French) press in Montreal first, that got picked up in the Anglo press.
That's nothing to do with what I said though. This is a good local news story - especially with the court challenge - so it's normal for the Montreal press to report it. I think it could be an interesting kick off for a national piece on immigration and schools.
What actually happened was that the Anglo press took this decent local story and, as I say, squeezed it into the pre-fit template of Quebecois stories. Look at the judgements in first sentence alone: 'The playgrounds, hallways and cafeterias of Quebec's largest school board will soon be French-only zones as authorities move to silence other languages, even during recess.'
There is nothing whatever inaccurate about that sentence. :huh: That's exactly what the policy is intended to do.
As the story goes on to explain, the ostensible
purpose of making the school a "French only zone" is total immersion and the parents, as also described in the story, are by a large majority in favour of it.
Note that the story gives the last word to the spokesperson from the school in favour of the policy.
As to the notion that it is the Anglo press that is "pre-fitting" the story into some sort of narrative about language rights, that is simply silly and counter-factual - it totally ignores the fact that it is
within the province of Quebec that the legal challange (as documented in the story itself) is being made!
As I said already, it is a story about language politics
within Quebec that is merely being
reported on. I fail to see the offence here.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 29, 2011, 09:38:39 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 29, 2011, 08:49:05 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 29, 2011, 02:43:56 PM
You always say this after you've had an argument with Malthus et al about French vs English.
It probably owes more to the fact that Languish gets on my nerve in recurring cycles, and that Canadian politics are now perhaps the only threads I participate in. Plus I am currently overworked and tired. Though I still think that Malthus - whom I appreciate - takes an awfully smug tone in these usual debates. :P Add to the fact that I more and more subscribe to what Mihali wrote a few days ago; and I still mean what I said when I thought that Languish was reactionary. I'd explain at more length if I wasn't so tired, and if I knew that my words wouldn't be needlessly twisted; that might have make for an interesting discussion.
Well, I'm not reactionary. You splitter.
And Mal, for all his fine points, and he has many, of course (he's one of my favorite people here) can be smug about anything.
Also he never gave me any feedback on whether I was interpreting the PMPRB guidelines correctly. <_<
I am amused how an argument in which I pointed out that Oex had incorrectly ascribed to an article a title that it did not have, and did not see content that it did have, is now "about" me being smug.
Are we such delicate flowers now, that we cannot stand being proven wrong but must melt into some sort of mutual congratulation society? Languish is all about hard arguments. If arguing hard is the sign of a smug asshole, then I'm happy to be one.
Quote from: Malthus on November 30, 2011, 09:30:41 AMThere is nothing whatever inaccurate about that sentence. :huh: That's exactly what the policy is intended to do.
As the story goes on to explain, the ostensible purpose of making the school a "French only zone" is total immersion and the parents, as also described in the story, are by a large majority in favour of it.
I'd argue the tone is far from neutral reporting. 'French only zone' is emotive, not to mention the phrase 'silence other languages'. 'The playgrounds, hallways and cafeterias ... even during recess' is also the language you get in the Daily Mail when it's on one of its 'is nothing sacred' rants. Similarly it mentions the school board in the first half of the sentence, after that it's 'the authorities' which is rather more statist and shadowy.
There's a tone in that first sentence which shapes how you're meant to read the rest of the article. It may be entirely factual but it's not neutral in any way.
QuoteAs to the notion that it is the Anglo press that is "pre-fitting" the story into some sort of narrative about language rights, that is simply silly and counter-factual - it totally ignores the fact that it is within the province of Quebec that the legal challange (as documented in the story itself) is being made!
I acknowledge the legal challenge, that's entirely beside the point which is my observation that the Anglo-Canadian media have a particular slant when it comes to reporting on Quebec. If anything it reminds me of the sort of reporting you get in The Guardian about Israel or the US. The adjectives and adverbs have been written they just need to place the facts around them.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 30, 2011, 09:53:33 AM
I'd argue the tone is far from neutral reporting. 'French only zone' is emotive, not to mention the phrase 'silence other languages'. 'The playgrounds, hallways and cafeterias ... even during recess' is also the language you get in the Daily Mail when it's on one of its 'is nothing sacred' rants. Similarly it mentions the school board in the first half of the sentence, after that it's 'the authorities' which is rather more statist and shadowy.
There's a tone in that first sentence which shapes how you're meant to read the rest of the article. It may be entirely factual but it's not neutral in any way.
I disagree. The job of the lead sentence is to get you interested in the article. Why should anyone care about this story? The answer: because, it is alleged, it is a challenge to rights.
The point is that the *allegation it is a challenge to rights is not something invented by the RoC*. As the article itself states, it is something that originates in *Quebec*. The controversy is a *within Quebec* controversy.
QuoteI acknowledge the legal challenge, that's entirely beside the point which is my observation that the Anglo-Canadian media have a particular slant when it comes to reporting on Quebec.
I see how you would get to that position: if you decide the facts of the story are "entirely beside the point".
The very point, I would think, is this: is the story:
(a) The "anglo-Canadian media" taking a factually neutral incident and, by imposing their pre-existing political slant on it, concluding that this incident ought to be (shock, horror) some sort of manufactured "controversy" for enflaming the biased masses of Anglos against Quebec? or
(b) is the Post simply reporting on a story concerning an existing "controversy" in Quebec?
Knowing all the talking heads quoted, knowing that the story first broke in the Montreal French press, it is pretty obviously (b).
The kicker is this: in reading the story, it isn't obvious that we are intended to come away with the belief that the Quebec schoolboard is in the wrong!
Quote from: Caliga on November 29, 2011, 10:56:43 PM
Ide, what's with all the posting in French lately? Francais est la langue des homosexuelles.
Homosexuelles? So it is the language of Lesbians eh?
Quote from: garbon on November 29, 2011, 02:03:18 PM
Marti does that and I don't think we care.
that would explain the Back Alley, I suppose...
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 29, 2011, 02:12:49 PM
It is most revealing that you think speaking a language different then french is similar to drawing a nazi symbol in their books. If we are to be serious perhaps you could do better than try to explain away a clear infringement of legitimate expressive rights by a tyranny of the majority argument.
you're arguing freedom of speech in schools. There's no such things in schools. I can draw all the nazi symbols I want in my books at home, I could not do that at school. I can say "fuck you" at anyone I want, but not in school. Your kid could dress however he wants at home, in the streets, without fear of retribution. He can't do that in school.
So, I stand by my point, no freedom of speech in schools. And while I do not know about BC schools, I do know the rules are very similar in Ontario, even if my exchange was very short.
Quote from: viper37 on November 30, 2011, 11:07:26 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 29, 2011, 02:12:49 PM
It is most revealing that you think speaking a language different then french is similar to drawing a nazi symbol in their books. If we are to be serious perhaps you could do better than try to explain away a clear infringement of legitimate expressive rights by a tyranny of the majority argument.
you're arguing freedom of speech in schools. There's no such things in schools. I can draw all the nazi symbols I want in my books at home, I could not do that at school. I can say "fuck you" at anyone I want, but not in school. Your kid could dress however he wants at home, in the streets, without fear of retribution. He can't do that in school.
So, I stand by my point, no freedom of speech in schools. And while I do not know about BC schools, I do know the rules are very similar in Ontario, even if my exchange was very short.
I wouldn't say "there's no such thing as freedom of speech at schools". There are limits put on freedom of speech, but it is still a constitutionally protected right, and schools are still governmental institutions. Any number of rights have been found to exist within a school, including freedom of speech.
Quote from: viper37 on November 30, 2011, 11:07:26 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 29, 2011, 02:12:49 PM
It is most revealing that you think speaking a language different then french is similar to drawing a nazi symbol in their books. If we are to be serious perhaps you could do better than try to explain away a clear infringement of legitimate expressive rights by a tyranny of the majority argument.
you're arguing freedom of speech in schools. There's no such things in schools. I can draw all the nazi symbols I want in my books at home, I could not do that at school. I can say "fuck you" at anyone I want, but not in school. Your kid could dress however he wants at home, in the streets, without fear of retribution. He can't do that in school.
So, I stand by my point, no freedom of speech in schools. And while I do not know about BC schools, I do know the rules are very similar in Ontario, even if my exchange was very short.
I think CC's comment still stands. Not sure why you quoted it if you weren't actually going to address what he said.
Quote from: Berkut on November 29, 2011, 03:24:01 PM
With the discussion, or with Oex maybe leaving, or with French Canadian teachers hitting students in the back if they are heard speaking something other than French during their free time?
had England lots the 1812 war, maybe Quebec would have become some Texas of the North. But since it's not the case, there's no hitting students here.
Quote from: Caliga on November 29, 2011, 10:56:43 PM
Ide, what's with all the posting in French lately? Francais est la langue des homosexuelles.
French as a lesbian language? Could be hot, you know.
Quote from: viper37 on November 30, 2011, 11:14:31 AM
had England lots the 1812 war, maybe Quebec would have become some Texas of the North. But since it's not the case, there's no hitting students here.
England? Did the rest of Great Britain take the war off?
Quote from: Malthus on November 30, 2011, 10:05:29 AM
The point is that the *allegation it is a challenge to rights is not something invented by the RoC*. As the article itself states, it is something that originates in *Quebec*. The controversy is a *within Quebec* controversy.
The controversy comes from Julius Gray, who isn't Québécois, and by no means would define himself as such, and at most would acknowledge "to live in Quebec".
Quote from: Valmy on November 30, 2011, 11:19:38 AM
Quote from: viper37 on November 30, 2011, 11:14:31 AM
had England lots the 1812 war, maybe Quebec would have become some Texas of the North. But since it's not the case, there's no hitting students here.
England? Did the rest of Great Britain take the war off?
It's all the same to me.
Quote from: viper37 on November 30, 2011, 11:14:31 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 29, 2011, 03:24:01 PM
With the discussion, or with Oex maybe leaving, or with French Canadian teachers hitting students in the back if they are heard speaking something other than French during their free time?
had England lots the 1812 war, maybe Quebec would have become some Texas of the North. But since it's not the case, there's no hitting students here.
WTF???
Quote from: Barrister on November 30, 2011, 11:11:48 AM
I wouldn't say "there's no such thing as freedom of speech at schools". There are limits put on freedom of speech, but it is still a constitutionally protected right, and schools are still governmental institutions. Any number of rights have been found to exist within a school, including freedom of speech.
ok, then, let's say "severly limited freedom of speech". There's no way I could tell a teacher "fuck you mon ostie" back in school without having serious troubles.
Quote from: Barrister on November 30, 2011, 11:21:37 AM
Quote from: viper37 on November 30, 2011, 11:14:31 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 29, 2011, 03:24:01 PM
With the discussion, or with Oex maybe leaving, or with French Canadian teachers hitting students in the back if they are heard speaking something other than French during their free time?
had England lots the 1812 war, maybe Quebec would have become some Texas of the North. But since it's not the case, there's no hitting students here.
WTF???
There's no corporal beatings in Quebec, unlike Texas and other southern US states.
Had Canada been conquered in 1812, history would certainly have evolved in a different way, I tought that was a given.
Quote from: garbon on November 30, 2011, 11:13:35 AM
I think CC's comment still stands. Not sure why you quoted it if you weren't actually going to address what he said.
I'm not equating anything, I'm not arguing speaking english is the same as drawing nazi symbols. I'm just saying freedom of speech in the civil society is not the same as it is in school.
Ask Grumbler if you don't believe me, he's a teacher. What happens to a student insulting a teacher? What happens if a neighbor insults Grumbler? Two different things.
I have the right to write nazi symbols at home, I don't have that right in school. Two different things.
Quote from: viper37 on November 30, 2011, 11:21:10 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 30, 2011, 11:19:38 AM
Quote from: viper37 on November 30, 2011, 11:14:31 AM
had England lots the 1812 war, maybe Quebec would have become some Texas of the North. But since it's not the case, there's no hitting students here.
England? Did the rest of Great Britain take the war off?
It's all the same to me.
Heh that does sound like something a Texan would say.
Quote from: viper37 on November 30, 2011, 11:24:35 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 30, 2011, 11:21:37 AM
Quote from: viper37 on November 30, 2011, 11:14:31 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 29, 2011, 03:24:01 PM
With the discussion, or with Oex maybe leaving, or with French Canadian teachers hitting students in the back if they are heard speaking something other than French during their free time?
had England lots the 1812 war, maybe Quebec would have become some Texas of the North. But since it's not the case, there's no hitting students here.
WTF???
There's no corporal beatings in Quebec, unlike Texas and other southern US states.
Had Canada been conquered in 1812, history would certainly have evolved in a different way, I tought that was a given.
Your first sentence didn't make any sense though. This at least makes sense in that it expresses an idea in an understandable fashion.
Quote from: viper37 on November 30, 2011, 11:24:35 AM
There's no corporal beatings in Quebec, unlike Texas and other southern US states.
Had Canada been conquered in 1812, history would certainly have evolved in a different way, I tought that was a given.
I have been over this before. It is because of our decentralized government structure that is a result of our Wild Wild West frontier past. Doing something like have a state policy on something like corporal punishment is really difficult.
Quote from: viper37 on November 30, 2011, 11:27:48 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 30, 2011, 11:13:35 AM
I think CC's comment still stands. Not sure why you quoted it if you weren't actually going to address what he said.
I'm not equating anything, I'm not arguing speaking english is the same as drawing nazi symbols. I'm just saying freedom of speech in the civil society is not the same as it is in school.
Ask Grumbler if you don't believe me, he's a teacher. What happens to a student insulting a teacher? What happens if a neighbor insults Grumbler? Two different things.
I have the right to write nazi symbols at home, I don't have that right in school. Two different things.
But you are equating those things when you say that speaking in another language should be dealt with in the same manner...
Quote from: viper37 on November 30, 2011, 11:21:10 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 30, 2011, 11:19:38 AM
Quote from: viper37 on November 30, 2011, 11:14:31 AM
had England lots the 1812 war, maybe Quebec would have become some Texas of the North. But since it's not the case, there's no hitting students here.
England? Did the rest of Great Britain take the war off?
It's all the same to me.
Hmm...:lol:
Viper, the point you are missing is your argument is that children can be told by the State what language to speak in private conversations simply because a majority of people in the Province of Quebec think that is appropriate. That is a classic case of tyranny of the majority.
I am sure you would see things differently if the Federal Parliament amended the Official Languages Act to make education in English mandatory and french kids were required by their english schools to speak english at all times.
Quote from: Malthus on November 30, 2011, 09:37:52 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 29, 2011, 09:38:39 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 29, 2011, 08:49:05 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 29, 2011, 02:43:56 PM
You always say this after you've had an argument with Malthus et al about French vs English.
It probably owes more to the fact that Languish gets on my nerve in recurring cycles, and that Canadian politics are now perhaps the only threads I participate in. Plus I am currently overworked and tired. Though I still think that Malthus - whom I appreciate - takes an awfully smug tone in these usual debates. :P Add to the fact that I more and more subscribe to what Mihali wrote a few days ago; and I still mean what I said when I thought that Languish was reactionary. I'd explain at more length if I wasn't so tired, and if I knew that my words wouldn't be needlessly twisted; that might have make for an interesting discussion.
Well, I'm not reactionary. You splitter.
And Mal, for all his fine points, and he has many, of course (he's one of my favorite people here) can be smug about anything.
Also he never gave me any feedback on whether I was interpreting the PMPRB guidelines correctly. <_<
I am amused how an argument in which I pointed out that Oex had incorrectly ascribed to an article a title that it did not have, and did not see content that it did have, is now "about" me being smug.
Are we such delicate flowers now, that we cannot stand being proven wrong but must melt into some sort of mutual congratulation society? Languish is all about hard arguments. If arguing hard is the sign of a smug asshole, then I'm happy to be one.
Okay, Malthus, I apologize.
Tsk, you fail as a lawyer Ide. Never back down. ever!
Quote from: Ideologue on November 30, 2011, 01:17:47 PM
Okay, Malthus, I apologize.
If I was to seek an apology, I'd be doing the very thing I criticize. Damn you, Ide! :D
CONVERSATIONAL JUDO!
Quote from: HVC on November 30, 2011, 01:52:49 PM
Tsk, you fail as a lawyer Ide.
Film at eleven? :lol:
I take Oexmelin's recent statements about board personalities as a personal affront. I wish to point out that I am the board's official smug reactionary. Neither Malthus nor Berkut can possibly match my insouciant complacency, much less the pointless extravagance of my wine cellar. I doubt either has even sipped a acceptable brandy in the past year.
Quote from: garbon on November 30, 2011, 12:08:36 PM
But you are equating those things when you say that speaking in another language should be dealt with in the same manner...
No I am not saying that all. I am saying there are differences in free speech in the civil society and in school, and I provided some examples of that.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 30, 2011, 12:18:03 PM
Viper, the point you are missing is your argument is that children can be told by the State what language to speak in private conversations simply because a majority of people in the Province of Quebec think that is appropriate. That is a classic case of tyranny of the majority.
they are not told by the State. And they are told all the time at school what language they should speak in private conversations. Just as in court you have a code to respect, as I don't think judges allow you to call a witness "that motherfucker".
The only thing here is the National Post, and the usual Canadians making a fuss about a silly school board rule "OMG they're racists nazis1111".
Quote
I am sure you would see things differently if the Federal Parliament amended the Official Languages Act to make education in English mandatory and french kids were required by their english schools to speak english at all times.
For decades, French schools were subject to the authority of English Only Schoolboards in Ontario, Manitoba and New Brunswick. Never heard any anglos make a fuss about it. When Sault-Ste-Marie declared itself unilingual, Ontarians hapily burnt the Quebec flag. I can't remember the Globe&Mail condemning the gesture, the flag burning or the unilingual cities.
But hey, a schoolboard enacting a policy approved by parents, this is a serious crime.
It becomes coercicion by the mighty State. Jesus Christ, if they're so oppressed, they can attend private school, move a few streets to the west or move to one of the other 9 provinces. So far, only one Canadian lawyer living in Quebec is outraged at this and actively seeking clients after the National Post called him.
Quote from: viper37 on November 30, 2011, 02:51:34 PM
And they are told all the time at school what language they should speak in private conversations.
:huh:
Who is the "they" you are referring to here.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 29, 2011, 11:44:12 PM
Quote from: Caliga on November 29, 2011, 10:56:43 PM
Ide, what's with all the posting in French lately? Francais est la langue des homosexuelles.
Trying to learn it, in my customary desultory manner.
well you're not allowed, since as I pointed out it's a lesbian language. :)
The kinds of surgery I get are no business of yours.
Threads about the French in Canada always deliver.
Quote from: Berkut on November 30, 2011, 06:11:58 PM
Threads about the French in Canada always deliver.
Apparently, so can Ide, after his surgery.
Quote from: Malthus on November 30, 2011, 06:16:33 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 30, 2011, 06:11:58 PM
Threads about the French in Canada always deliver.
Apparently, so can Ide, after his surgery.
That's not true, and part of the reason why he can't ever be a lesbian.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 30, 2011, 03:08:34 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 30, 2011, 02:51:34 PM
And they are told all the time at school what language they should speak in private conversations.
:huh:
Who is the "they" you are referring to here.
students in elementary school, and even high school. Are kids allowed to swear in BC schools? Definately not here. Can't tell your teacher to "fuck off" either.
We could say it in French.
Quote from: viper37 on December 01, 2011, 11:13:36 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 30, 2011, 03:08:34 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 30, 2011, 02:51:34 PM
And they are told all the time at school what language they should speak in private conversations.
:huh:
Who is the "they" you are referring to here.
students in elementary school, and even high school. Are kids allowed to swear in BC schools? Definately not here. Can't tell your teacher to "fuck off" either.
Again I find it very interesting that you equate telling a teacher to "fuck off" to speaking english in private.
Quote from: Berkut on November 30, 2011, 06:11:58 PM
Threads about the French in Canada always deliver.
"The French in Canada"?
Quote from: Caliga on November 30, 2011, 04:04:38 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 29, 2011, 11:44:12 PM
Quote from: Caliga on November 29, 2011, 10:56:43 PM
Ide, what's with all the posting in French lately? Francais est la langue des homosexuelles.
Trying to learn it, in my customary desultory manner.
well you're not allowed, since as I pointed out it's a lesbian language. :)
All the homosexuals in Montreal told me to take it up.
Quote from: viper37 on November 30, 2011, 11:07:26 AM
I can draw all the nazi symbols I want in my books at home, I could not do that at school.
In our public schools, at least when I attended, we weren't supposed to draw anything in our textbooks, beacuse they were public property that we had use of until the end of the school year, not our personal property. Same thing for books checked out of the school library--we didn't own them as individuals, so we weren't supposed to mark them up. A lot of us did mark them in one way or another, at times, and got into trouble for doing so. But if someone drew Nazi (or communist, or phallic) symbols in the schoolbooks, they didn't get in any more trouble than they did for drawing stickfigures, or pictures of automobiles. But we got in trouble for defacing public property, not for the content of what we drew.
And if we brought a book from home to read in study hall or the like, we could draw whatever we wanted in it (at least as far as the school was concerned--our parents might been another matter entirely).
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 01, 2011, 12:19:51 PM
Again I find it very interesting that you equate telling a teacher to "fuck off" to speaking english in private.
lawyers :roll:
Quote from: dps on December 01, 2011, 02:33:08 PM
But if someone drew Nazi (or communist, or phallic) symbols in the schoolbooks, they didn't get in any more trouble than they did for drawing stickfigures, or pictures of automobiles. But we got in trouble for defacing public property, not for the content of what we drew.
Well time's have changed. I remember it being a very, very big deal in middle school when a kid drew a Nazi symbol on a desk.
Heh, I had a friend who was quite a good artist and in HS he decorated his desk with intricate pen-and-ink drawings using the technical drafting pens we all favoured at the time - it was so well done the teacher could not bring herself to have it erased (it was really very good - sort of a Heronymus Bosch landscape). He worked on it for months, didn't affect his concentration in class any - he still answered every question.
But one day the regular teacher was sick, and a sub came in - and first thing she did was Ajax over it. It was heartbreaking.
Quote from: garbon on December 01, 2011, 03:36:57 PM
Quote from: dps on December 01, 2011, 02:33:08 PM
But if someone drew Nazi (or communist, or phallic) symbols in the schoolbooks, they didn't get in any more trouble than they did for drawing stickfigures, or pictures of automobiles. But we got in trouble for defacing public property, not for the content of what we drew.
Well time's have changed. I remember it being a very, very big deal in middle school when a kid drew a Nazi symbol on a desk.
I remember kids getting in trouble for drawing an Anarchy sign on their notebooks. The teachers claimed it was a gang sign.
Quote from: Berkut on November 30, 2011, 06:11:58 PM
Threads about the French in Canada always deliver.
It's true, they do!
Quote from: Malthus on December 01, 2011, 03:42:57 PM
But one day the regular teacher was sick, and a sub came in - and first thing she did was Ajax over it. It was heartbreaking.
Good. Change must be resisted and protests need clear programs and agendas.
Quote from: Malthus on December 01, 2011, 03:42:57 PM
Heh, I had a friend who was quite a good artist and in HS he decorated his desk with intricate pen-and-ink drawings using the technical drafting pens we all favoured at the time - it was so well done the teacher could not bring herself to have it erased (it was really very good - sort of a Heronymus Bosch landscape). He worked on it for months, didn't affect his concentration in class any - he still answered every question.
But one day the regular teacher was sick, and a sub came in - and first thing she did was Ajax over it. It was heartbreaking.
No, it isn't. If he wanted it to be preserved, he maybe should have, I don't know, DONE IT ON HIS OWN PROPERTY.
Or at least not state property, the highest form of property. :hmm:
Quote from: Ideologue on December 01, 2011, 05:24:40 PM
Or at least not state property, the highest form of property. :hmm:
Isn't state property a pretty low form of property, since they allow scumbags with tents to live on it?
I used to draw swastikas in my notebooks all the time when I was in school. I also liked to draw peace symbols, the Van Halen logo, the yin-yang symbol, and other stuff like that. I just liked symbols in general. I still like the way the swastika looks and wish it wasn't so closely related to Nazism now. :(
Just say it's Hindu. Swastikas are all over the place (people even use it as a name).
Quote from: Caliga on December 01, 2011, 08:04:44 PM
I used to draw swastikas in my notebooks all the time when I was in school. I also liked to draw peace symbols, the Van Halen logo, the yin-yang symbol, and other stuff like that. I just liked symbols in general. I still like the way the swastika looks and wish it wasn't so closely related to Nazism now. :(
The bad guys took all the good symbols. The Soviets and the Nazis had much cooler flags then we do. The Swastika and the hammer and sickle are simple and aesthetically pleasing. The Stars and Stripes are too "busy". I dislike tricolors, but I give the French a pass on that. I know they weren't the first, but theirs is the best.
The hammer and sickle has never had much appeal for me. The anarchy symbol is cooler.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 01, 2011, 08:07:10 PM
Just say it's Hindu. Swastikas are all over the place (people even use it as a name).
Because of it's prominence in India is why the Nazis chose it. Or to more accurate why it was considered an "Aryan" symbol in the early 20th century.
The King in Yellow has a cool symbol: The Yellow Sign.
Quote from: Neil on December 01, 2011, 08:00:11 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 01, 2011, 05:24:40 PM
Or at least not state property, the highest form of property. :hmm:
Isn't state property a pretty low form of property, since they allow scumbags with tents to live on it?
Not really. That's why OWS had to find a park with a loophole in NYC because the city gov was free to kick them out of city parks.
instead of starting a new language thread i thought i'd bump this one. a report by some think tank is out. Seems that Ontario spends 7.5 time as much per per person to accomadate its minority speakers then Quebec does. Ontario spends $52 per person and Quebec $7. That's per citizen, not per minority speaker. For compairson Ontario has 489,000 francophones to Quebecs 575,000 anglo's.
How the hell do they spend 52$/person, by closing schools?
Quote from: HVC on January 16, 2012, 12:00:26 PM
instead of starting a new language thread i thought i'd bump this one. a report by some think tank is out. Seems that Ontario spends 7.5 time as much per per person to accomadate its minority speakers then Quebec does. Ontario spends $52 per person and Quebec $7. That's per citizen, not per minority speaker. For compairson Ontario has 489,000 francophones to Quebecs 575,000 anglo's.
for once, we are more efficient than Ontario. Good news. :cool:
You probably import your french translators from oversea, knowing Ontario's usual snobbing of Quebec based products (laugh all you want, but Canadian tv series and movies are dubbed in France...).
Can't see how you justify the costs of 52$ per person. I suspect different methods in accounting. Maybe in Ontario they count French schools and the only french hospital (there are at least 4 in Quebec) of the province as part of their translation budget.
PArt of it is that Quebec is a poor province and probbly spends less per capita on all kinds of public services when compared to Ontario.
Quote from: HVC on January 16, 2012, 12:00:26 PM
instead of starting a new language thread i thought i'd bump this one. a report by some think tank is out. Seems that Ontario spends 7.5 time as much per per person to accomadate its minority speakers then Quebec does. Ontario spends $52 per person and Quebec $7. That's per citizen, not per minority speaker. For compairson Ontario has 489,000 francophones to Quebecs 575,000 anglo's.
Surely 'minority speaker' would include things like translation of government services for recent migrants too, not just Anglo-Quebecois?
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 16, 2012, 04:17:54 PM
Quote from: HVC on January 16, 2012, 12:00:26 PM
instead of starting a new language thread i thought i'd bump this one. a report by some think tank is out. Seems that Ontario spends 7.5 time as much per per person to accomadate its minority speakers then Quebec does. Ontario spends $52 per person and Quebec $7. That's per citizen, not per minority speaker. For compairson Ontario has 489,000 francophones to Quebecs 575,000 anglo's.
Surely 'minority speaker' would include things like translation of government services for recent migrants too, not just Anglo-Quebecois?
didn't read the report, but the news snippet made it seem like this cost was solely francophone tracked. i was goign to link the article but i forgot where i read it :lol:
Quote from: viper37 on January 16, 2012, 04:08:51 PM
for once, we are more efficient than Ontario. Good news. :cool:
You probably import your french translators from oversea, knowing Ontario's usual snobbing of Quebec based products (laugh all you want, but Canadian tv series and movies are dubbed in France...).
We probably dub outside of Quebec becasue we're taught proper parisian french and you guys speak funny french :P
Which i always found odd, really. if we're taught french to communicate with quebec why not learn your version of french?
Quote from: HVC on January 16, 2012, 04:34:37 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 16, 2012, 04:17:54 PM
Quote from: HVC on January 16, 2012, 12:00:26 PM
instead of starting a new language thread i thought i'd bump this one. a report by some think tank is out. Seems that Ontario spends 7.5 time as much per per person to accomadate its minority speakers then Quebec does. Ontario spends $52 per person and Quebec $7. That's per citizen, not per minority speaker. For compairson Ontario has 489,000 francophones to Quebecs 575,000 anglo's.
Surely 'minority speaker' would include things like translation of government services for recent migrants too, not just Anglo-Quebecois?
didn't read the report, but the news snippet made it seem like this cost was solely francophone tracked. i was goign to link the article but i forgot where i read it :lol:
Ottawa Sun. They even mispelled the French title... 52$ per person, and yet, Ontario can't find any decent translator in the province :(
Quote from: HVC on January 16, 2012, 04:35:58 PM
Which i always found odd, really. if we're taught french to communicate with quebec why not learn your version of french?
accent aside, for formal speech, the words&expressions are 99% similars. For informal chatter, it's a whole lot different though.
Quote from: viper37 on January 16, 2012, 04:46:50 PM
Quote from: HVC on January 16, 2012, 04:35:58 PM
Which i always found odd, really. if we're taught french to communicate with quebec why not learn your version of french?
accent aside, for formal speech, the words&expressions are 99% similars. For informal chatter, it's a whole lot different though.
I'm actually going through this right now as I've been running studies in France/Quebec. I had a French colleague look over that my client's translators provided and she said that the Quebec translation would have been better than the French (France) for both markets. :D
Quote from: viper37 on January 16, 2012, 04:08:51 PM
Quote from: HVC on January 16, 2012, 12:00:26 PM
instead of starting a new language thread i thought i'd bump this one. a report by some think tank is out. Seems that Ontario spends 7.5 time as much per per person to accomadate its minority speakers then Quebec does. Ontario spends $52 per person and Quebec $7. That's per citizen, not per minority speaker. For compairson Ontario has 489,000 francophones to Quebecs 575,000 anglo's.
for once, we are more efficient than Ontario. Good news. :cool:
You probably import your french translators from oversea, knowing Ontario's usual snobbing of Quebec based products (laugh all you want, but Canadian tv series and movies are dubbed in France...).
Can't see how you justify the costs of 52$ per person. I suspect different methods in accounting. Maybe in Ontario they count French schools and the only french hospital (there are at least 4 in Quebec) of the province as part of their translation budget.
Well, maybe people in Ontario are just worth more.