Hot Pink List
Toronto Escorts

The most exciting issue in Canadian politics

langeweile

Banned
Sep 21, 2004
5,086
0
0
In a van down by the river
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/03/31/101050331.html

Here it goes again.
The politicians responsible for this mess should be shot. How can a province deny a child to learn english is beyond my comprehension. Especially when 99% of the North American continent speaks english. Where will these children find a job, without any language skills.
I am glad that I had the option(and money) to leave this province.
 

hambone

New member
Nov 18, 2001
1,585
0
0
lurking
I suppose the Francophones are attempting to save their heritage, but you do wonder at them doing so at the children's expense. I attended school in Quebec and was taught in both languages. Could that not be continued?
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
langeweile said:
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/03/31/101050331.html

Here it goes again.
The politicians responsible for this mess should be shot. How can a province deny a child to learn english is beyond my comprehension. Especially when 99% of the North American continent speaks english. Where will these children find a job, without any language skills.
I am glad that I had the option(and money) to leave this province.
That's hysterical.

OTB
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
47,017
5,950
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
onthebottom said:
That's hysterical.

OTB
bot

You know I don't agree with much of what you say but on this point I have to agree with you completely.....it is hysterical....:D
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
Lang call me when you get in from lunch. May I remind you that the page you referred to says:
"in a unanimous judgment, the court stopped short of striking down provincial legislation that restricts access to English schools. But it laid down new legal criteria that will make it easier for immigrants and native-born Canadians to gain access to English schools.
The way I read English that means the Supes made it easier to get into English schools. Not for everyone, and there still are restrictions, but easier is easier, yes? Or is there some new version of English of which I am unaware?

Because I'm nothing if not petty and argumentative: in how many places in the world do linguistic minorities have any right at all to education in their language? Isn't LA County about 40% or more Spanish speaking? How big is the Spanish school system there? Call me when the US Supreme Court gives anglo-american parents the right to send their kids to it.

Please, no bleating, "English is the language of world trade and learning". So was Latin for awhile, although Greek was always more widespread just not popular among the barbarians in Rome. All that stuff changes; a peek over the near horizon says our future's Mandarin.

But high court judges are supposed to speak for the longer term truths we hope our legislators were wise enought to embody in law. Truths like respect for minorities, and as a member of a soon-to-be-minority I sure hope they do. It's not the language, but the thoughts expressed i n the language that count, and the Supremes did a pretty well on that score, in both official languages.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
hambone said:
I suppose the Francophones are attempting to save their heritage, but you do wonder at them doing so at the children's expense. I attended school in Quebec and was taught in both languages. Could that not be continued?
Yes. Nothing in the decision today affects that. Both school systems teach the other language as a second language. What the Supremes said was
CBC on their website said:
members of the linguistic majority have no constitutional right to education in the minority language
They reaffirmed that the English minority does have a right to education in English and told the province to make access to it less restrictive.
 
Jan 24, 2004
1,279
0
0
The Vegetative State
WoodPeckr said:
bot

You know I don't agree with much of what you say but on this point I have to agree with you completely.....it is hysterical....:D
My God. OTB, Pecker and I all agree.

Has the Moon turned blood red?
 

langeweile

Banned
Sep 21, 2004
5,086
0
0
In a van down by the river
oldjones said:
Lang call me when you get in from lunch. May I remind you that the page you referred to says: The way I read English that means the Supes made it easier to get into English schools. Not for everyone, and there still are restrictions, but easier is easier, yes? Or is there some new version of English of which I am unaware?

Because I'm nothing if not petty and argumentative: in how many places in the world do linguistic minorities have any right at all to education in their language? Isn't LA County about 40% or more Spanish speaking? How big is the Spanish school system there? Call me when the US Supreme Court gives anglo-american parents the right to send their kids to it.

Please, no bleating, "English is the language of world trade and learning". So was Latin for awhile, although Greek was always more widespread just not popular among the barbarians in Rome. All that stuff changes; a peek over the near horizon says our future's Mandarin.

But high court judges are supposed to speak for the longer term truths we hope our legislators were wise enought to embody in law. Truths like respect for minorities, and as a member of a soon-to-be-minority I sure hope they do. It's not the language, but the thoughts expressed i n the language that count, and the Supremes did a pretty well on that score, in both official languages.
It is nice to see that you are slowly showing your true colours. Looks like that behind the fassade of pretend intellectuality, there is just a regular guy who steps down to a level of personal insult, just like anybody else....see other post on this issue.

Now to the issue at hand.
I suggest you step outside of your intellectual think tank and join reality. While the courts, as correctly noted by you, has made it easier for ENGLISH parents to get their children educated in english, the French kids have been screwed in the process.
I don't know if English will survive as a world language or not, but neither do you.
The fact remains, that these kids are being isolated by some assholes with their own agenda. This isolation will rob this children of an opportunity to strive. In case you haven't noticed most of the rest of North America speaks english and about 20% speak Spanish.

tell me now "Oh wise one" how much opportunity do you think a child has to get a good job on this continent without speaking english???

in case you haven't noticed the QC population is in rapid decline, so much that your own goverment has awakened to the fact as well.
They are trying to cook up some incentive programs for Quebecoise to have more children..geez I wonder why..certainly not because of an ever growing population.

I have no issues with anybody wanting to preserve their heritage, but if you in the process hurt your own country and betray your own children, that something is foul in the state of denmark.
 

langeweile

Banned
Sep 21, 2004
5,086
0
0
In a van down by the river
bbking said:
You don't understand Canada all that well do you. While I am with you that Quebecers who fail to learn English will be greatly limited in their choices for careers, I firmly believe that Quebec and it's people have a right to make this choice based on conditions that allowed Upper and Lower Canada to merge. Our Constitution is very strong on minority rights and very clear on the language issue.

Actually Lange, it really should be us English types who should be concerned and that should be learing Spainish.



bbk
Oh I don't question the legality of it, but just because it is the law doesn't mean it makes sense nor is it right.

I agree on the spanish language. You are absolutely right if anyhting that should be made the second language.
BTW a lot of schools in the USA teach a part o their curriculum in Spanish, without goverment intervention, just because it makes sense.Go figure.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
langeweile said:
It is nice to see that you are slowly showing your true colours. Looks like that behind the fassade of pretend intellectuality, there is just a regular guy who steps down to a level of personal insult, just like anybody else…edit…
Gee, quote the insult, and I'll certainly apologize.

I went back to your first post, lest I'd misread you. I didn't: you're fulminating about "deny[ing] a child to learn English" inspired by a decision that actually extends the right to learn English. Sure boggled my mind.

You then pointed out 99% of this continent speaks English (In the post just above this you say 20% of the continent speaks Spanish, but let that slide) If they do, you're only talking about the 1% who don't. Even assuming they're all Quebec francophones, the other 99% will be spared the dire hardship you predict. Never mind the irrelevant birthrate stuff, none of this makes any sense. But it reminds me, did you hear the one about the world's only Manx monoglot?

I'd still like to know how the Hispanic soon-to-be-majority in LA are served for schools, and whether English parents there can demand Spanish education for their kids? That would be the equivalent of what the Supreme Court ruled against, Are you saying LA politicos "should be shot" for denying tham that right? Why not? why pick on our politicians to shoot?

Glutton for punishment that I am, I keep imagining what point you might be trying to make. Could it be that you believe the language law is an abridgement of rights. Sorry, Court says no. Stupid maybe? Could be, wouldn't be the first such law. Just imagine where we'd be if we shot all the pols who passed stupid laws: President Cheney. That was cheap, but irresistable. Stupid's a personal judgement isn't it, unless the facts are presented to back it up. You've presented none.

Anyway it was properly passed by a legislature filled with politicians voted in by an electorate who turn out in numbers about double those south of the border. For all its flaws we call that democracy. Persuade enough québecois to think as you do and they'll change that stupid law. To require Spanish, maybe, if I have thinking as you do right. Me I'd still vote for Mandarin.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
langeweile said:
Oh I don't question the legality of it, but just because it is the law doesn't mean it makes sense nor is it right.

I agree on the spanish language. You are absolutely right if anyhting that should be made the second language.
BTW a lot of schools in the USA teach a part o their curriculum in Spanish, without goverment intervention, just because it makes sense.Go figure.
Just the way the French schools in Quebec teach English, just because it makes sense. To say "without government intervention" when talking about tax-supported public schools is nonsense.
 

langeweile

Banned
Sep 21, 2004
5,086
0
0
In a van down by the river
oldjones said:
Gee, quote the insult, and I'll certainly apologize.

I went back to your first post, lest I'd misread you. I didn't: you're fulminating about "deny[ing] a child to learn English" inspired by a decision that actually extends the right to learn English. Sure boggled my mind.

You then pointed out 99% of this continent speaks English (In the post just above this you say 20% of the continent speaks Spanish, but let that slide) If they do, you're only talking about the 1% who don't. Even assuming they're all Quebec francophones, the other 99% will be spared the dire hardship you predict. Never mind the irrelevant birthrate stuff, none of this makes any sense. But it reminds me, did you hear the one about the world's only Manx monoglot?

I'd still like to know how the Hispanic soon-to-be-majority in LA are served for schools, and whether English parents there can demand Spanish education for their kids? That would be the equivalent of what the Supreme Court ruled against, Are you saying LA politicos "should be shot" for denying tham that right? Why not? why pick on our politicians to shoot?

Glutton for punishment that I am, I keep imagining what point you might be trying to make. Could it be that you believe the language law is an abridgement of rights. Sorry, Court says no. Stupid maybe? Could be, wouldn't be the first such law. Just imagine where we'd be if we shot all the pols who passed stupid laws: President Cheney. That was cheap, but irresistable. Stupid's a personal judgement isn't it, unless the facts are presented to back it up. You've presented none.

Anyway it was properly passed by a legislature filled with politicians voted in by an electorate who turn out in numbers about double those south of the border. For all its flaws we call that democracy. Persuade enough québecois to think as you do and they'll change that stupid law. To require Spanish, maybe, if I have thinking as you do right. Me I'd still vote for Mandarin.

Out for lunch???(insult)

The French parents, that brought on the law suit were denied the right to have their child educated in English.Read the article!!!!

99% of North America speaks English. 20% of the are hispanic, their first language is Spanish, but they have realized that to have all the opportunity you need to speak English in this part of the world.

The birthrate stuff was used as an illustration of the narrow mindedness of the 101 law. It has had absolutely no positive effect on Quebec. Quiet the contrary. Population has declined, a lot of businesses have left QC and Montreal is becoming a ghost town....at least they have good SP's.

I agree that it is legal and if you think it makes sense I respect your opinion. IMO it is a prime example of goverment stupidity. Why I have given you the arguments above. They will never hold up in a court of law, but thats not the point.
In any case I have lived there for a year and wasn't going to put up with this shit, so I left. My family is better of for it.IMHO
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
Well, if "out for lunch" came across as an insult, I must apologize for not editting even more rigourously than I did. Sorry.

What the court said was that the majority language parents have no right to choose a tax-paid education in the minority language for their child. I believe you will find that's true not just in Quebec, but in the rest of Canada, the entire United States and Mexico. In fact, probably in 100% of North America. And I understand it's a pretty common attitude in most jurisdictions around the world. Guess you believe all those governments are stupid too.

Oh I know, majority's irrelevant: it's rejecting English that's the cause here. Same thing, all those stupid governments reject a "right to English". Although, thanks to British imperialism, some guy in Bangalore who's been bribed and trained to say 'zee' instead of 'zed' now answers your tech support call. Was it Noel Coward who said, "In America they haven't spoken it for years."

As to your laughable "99% of North Americans speak English". The whole of Canada is 40 Million in round numbers, the US 400 million, Mexico 105 million. We could quibble about whether 20 million or so folks south of Mexico are or aren't North Americans, but I never heard of any but the two american continents myself. You wind up with a total between 545 and 565 million, so that 1% you go on about can round to an nice 5.5 million that speak no English.

So how many of them were your neighbours in Quebec? Lets be completely silly and say no one in the US does not speak English. But we will not be so silly as to say Mexico with all it's poverty and literacy issues gets any less than its pro rated share of 3.85 million. that leaves 1.7 for all of Canada, but for fun let's put them all in Quebec. The current population of Quebec is 7.5 million (up 7% from 1991) Which means you're asserting that about 1 in 5 Quebecers are francophone only. Too ridiculous for words—remember in all of Mexico, your 1% allows for only 1 in every 30 to speak nothing but Spanish, and no Russian cabbies for New York City. You can Gooogle as well as I can I'm sure. So either back up that number or stop repeating it. The rest of your points could sure use the break.
 

langeweile

Banned
Sep 21, 2004
5,086
0
0
In a van down by the river
oldjones said:
Well, if "out for lunch" came across as an insult, I must apologize for not editting even more rigourously than I did. Sorry.

What the court said was that the majority language parents have no right to choose a tax-paid education in the minority language for their child. I believe you will find that's true not just in Quebec, but in the rest of Canada, the entire United States and Mexico. In fact, probably in 100% of North America. And I understand it's a pretty common attitude in most jurisdictions around the world. Guess you believe all those governments are stupid too.

Oh I know, majority's irrelevant: it's rejecting English that's the cause here. Same thing, all those stupid governments reject a "right to English". Although, thanks to British imperialism, some guy in Bangalore who's been bribed and trained to say 'zee' instead of 'zed' now answers your tech support call. Was it Noel Coward who said, "In America they haven't spoken it for years."

As to your laughable "99% of North Americans speak English". The whole of Canada is 40 Million in round numbers, the US 400 million, Mexico 105 million. We could quibble about whether 20 million or so folks south of Mexico are or aren't North Americans, but I never heard of any but the two american continents myself. You wind up with a total between 545 and 565 million, so that 1% you go on about can round to an nice 5.5 million that speak no English.

So how many of them were your neighbours in Quebec? Lets be completely silly and say no one in the US does not speak English. But we will not be so silly as to say Mexico with all it's poverty and literacy issues gets any less than its pro rated share of 3.85 million. that leaves 1.7 for all of Canada, but for fun let's put them all in Quebec. The current population of Quebec is 7.5 million (up 7% from 1991) Which means you're asserting that about 1 in 5 Quebecers are francophone only. Too ridiculous for words—remember in all of Mexico, your 1% allows for only 1 in every 30 to speak nothing but Spanish, and no Russian cabbies for New York City. You can Gooogle as well as I can I'm sure. So either back up that number or stop repeating it. The rest of your points could sure use the break.

Thanks for doing the math for me. I never sat down ad did it myself. You are correct on your math, no question there.
By your post i can tell that you are more interested in math thatn the issue at hand. You are missing the point.
Let me try again.
My business is located in Quebec. My plant manager is from Quebec. He has three children. None of them speak a word of English. He is one of many that I know personally. (We have about 300 employees.)
Tell me, in your opinion what do you think are his children future chances to make a living outside of QC? How many jobs are they in this continent that you can do, without speaking English?
You can go on and on about stats. I prefer to see reality.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
langeweile said:
Thanks for doing the math for me. I never sat down ad did it myself. You are correct on your math, no question there.
By your post i can tell that you are more interested in math thatn the issue at hand. You are missing the point.
Let me try again.
My business is located in Quebec. My plant manager is from Quebec. He has three children. None of them speak a word of English. He is one of many that I know personally. (We have about 300 employees.)
Tell me, in your opinion what do you think are his children future chances to make a living outside of QC? How many jobs are they in this continent that you can do, without speaking English?
You can go on and on about stats. I prefer to see reality.
Hey you were the one who brought up stats as if they proved something, the math just demonstrated they were phony. I'm interested in facts.

I dunno; your reality seems to be a hypothetical problem someone else's children might face should they someday choose to leave their homeland. Hard work for them, as for any emigrant, if they do, but who says they won't be perfectly happy where they are? Or do just peachy in the 'Peg? Meantime, thanks to bilingualism, they have at least minimal access to French services across Canada. What has this to do with the Supreme Court decision?

You've called politicians assholes, and said they should be shot for allowing this situation to come about. That was the point of your first post,impossible to miss. But the Quebec situation is the same as it is everywhere, not just in North America, but the world over: parents do not have a right to send their kids to a state-funded minority-language school. Can you name any such place? What's the situation in LA where the 1991 census reported 4i% Spanish speaking? Could you elect to send your kids to the public Spanish schools there? Are there any? Would there be grounds for a court case if you were refused? In fact in most places outside Quebec there is no such right, and the Supremes just made access to Quebec's minority (read English) schools easier.

But you'd have people shot for this!

I believe I've answered all your questions but one and I'd appreciate similar courtesy. As to how many jobs are available for non-English speakers, I have no real clue, but I'm sure you've encountered lots of them, as have I, doing good, competent, paying work, even if they have doctoral degrees rusting away. That was/is their choice (we're not talking refugees) as is the effort and speed with which they better themselves. I'm sure you're an outspoken proponent of improving job-market access to match. But I'm going to say 1% of the jobs, and leave the math for you.
 

Truncador

New member
Mar 21, 2005
1,714
0
0
A society that reduces the individual to a mere vehicle for securing the existence of the race, and which reasons (at law, no less) that individuals are obliged to render such service to the race by virtue of having been born into it has no right to call itself civilized. This sort of utterly odious paternalism, I suppose, is to be expected from a society where feudalism and Catholic theocracy endured until the 1960s. Fortunately, though, with increasing modernization and exposure to the outside world, at least some Quebecois are waking up to realize that individuals have a right to be more than baby and language machines.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
Truncador said:
A society that reduces the individual to a mere vehicle for securing the existence of the race, and which reasons (at law, no less) that individuals are obliged to render such service to the race by virtue of having been born into it has no right to call itself civilized. This sort of utterly odious paternalism, I suppose, is to be expected from a society where feudalism and Catholic theocracy endured until the 1960s. Fortunately, though, with increasing modernization and exposure to the outside world, at least some Quebecois are waking up to realize that individuals have a right to be more than baby and language machines.
What are you talking about? Sounds as though you believe parenthood is obligatory in Quebec, and French compulsory.Neither is anything close to true. Perhaps you could clarify.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
oldjones said:
.......

Anyway it was properly passed by a legislature filled with politicians voted in by an electorate who turn out in numbers about double those south of the border. ......
Really?

Election Turnout in 2004 Was Highest Since 1968

By Brian Faler
Saturday, January 15, 2005; Page A05

The final numbers are in -- and turnout in the 2004 presidential election, it seems, was a bit more impressive than previously believed.

The Committee for the Study of the American Electorate reported yesterday that more than 122 million people voted in the November election, a number that translates into the highest turnout – 60.7 percent -- since 1968.

for the rest of the article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10492-2005Jan14.html

What is that Canadian voter turnout anyway?

OTB
 

Truncador

New member
Mar 21, 2005
1,714
0
0
oldjones said:
What are you talking about? Sounds as though you believe parenthood is obligatory in Quebec, and French compulsory.Neither is anything close to true. Perhaps you could clarify.
Umm, French is compulsory in Quebec under Law 101; in addition to the rule requiring anyone whose parents didn't attend an English-language school to go to French schools, the use of any language other than French on commerical signs is severely restricted (a rule that is vigrously enforced, typically to absurd lengths: a current case making headlines is of a bar whose sign has been judged illegal by the language police because it says "tavern" and not "taverne"). All businesses that employ more 50 people have to obtain a "certificate of Francization" attesting that French is the language of the workplace, and technically, the government isn't supposed to release any official document in English (although in practice they do so anyways).

As to parenthood: About a century ago, Catholic social activists in Quebec, who were among the first students of sociology and demographics in Canada, observed the demographic shift taking place in Protestant, English Canada and came up with the bright idea that if the French and Catholics would only start having more babies, they could eventually overrun Canada :rolleyes: They immediately set about exerting intense pressure on (French and/or Catholic) Quebecois to have as many children as possible. My father recalls the following exchange with a Catholic priest who came to visit him and my mother at their home when they emigrated to Montreal in the '50s:

....

Priest: "So, how come we don't have any children yet"

My dad: "What business is that of yours" ?

Priest: "Oh...you mean you're not Catholics" ?

My dad: "No".

Priest: "Oh, I'm sorry" *gets up, leaves*

....

This bizarre take on racial population politics contributed greatly to the immiseration of the French in the first 3/4ths of the 20th c.; as recently as the early 1970s, families of 14 children weren't uncommon. In spite of coming to rely increasingly on immigration since that time, governments in Quebec never gave up racial population policy, and has implemented many measures creating incentives for people to have more children; measures to create even more such incentives are being tabled presently.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
As I understand Bill 101 Truncador, you are correct on your incidences—as are the tongue troopers, "tavern" is not a French word—but I'd still say they have not made French compulsory. Rather I'd say that, in certain circumstances, chiefly signage they've made languages other than French illegal. Hair splitting perhaps, but to me the difference between forbidding unwanted behaviour and compelling desired behaviour is significant.

Lots of jurisdictions enact lots of ranklesome restrictions on signage regulating everything from language to materials to sizes, fonts, colours—you name it it's a law somewhere. There was a thread awhile back inspired by a municipal sign bylaw (in Ontario, I seem to recall, I'll see if I can find it ) Canadian Tire had to re-do the signs on their new store. What the foam-at-the-mouth guys missed was that it was CTC who asked the Council for the bylaw; they'd entirely overlooked the size of the francophone market themselves (over half) and suggested Council would be helping everyone with their bylaw.

The guy who's too pig-headed to imagine that his customers can figure out that a taverne is the same as a tavern is perfect recruiting material for the language nazis, He's as stupid as they are, and exactly the kind of "talk white boy" moron that inspired the language law in the first place.

As to la revanche du berçeau, I thought you were saying there was compulsion—other than the familiar urges TERBians know—there too. Thanks for clarifying. Again, nothing sinister or unusual, it's happened everywhere in the world where dollars flow to new parents. The Harris Tories were quite fond of evoking the image of welfare moms, as I recall.

Some governments, like Quebec's, have intended the population increase, others have expressed surprise or dismay, that poor people should be so short-sighted. Strangely the poor don't see it quite the same way. To them it was money for jam, for some it might be the only cash they'd see in a year. But once they smelled the threshold of the middle class, those bounties don't look so tempting any more.

As you say, the Quebec government looked at the stats, saw that most of the population growth in recent times was through immigration and decided on a 'baby incentive' taxbreak and rebate scheme. As I understand it, it's done what they wanted—even among the middle class—and the present Liberal government would be courting electoral disaster if they tinkered with it. If the voters approve, if their taxes can pay for it, and if their household budgets can manage, I don't really see the harm. Kids are swell, and it's democracy at work making demographics.

That's more or less my view: what's the big deal? BTW can we please agree not to drag in world population growth or the bungled mess that is equalization/federal provincial transfers; there'd be no limit to how wide-rangingly pointless we could make this if we did. Also, duty compels me to point out we've wandered a fair piece from the Supreme Court decision on school access that made langeweille start this thread. But maybe I can turn us back there with a reminder that on the sign law as well as the language law, Quebec has been judged to be legal under the Charter.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts