Second-class Canadian

If it's coersive, then it's forced. If it's forced, then it's genocide. By the way, genocide is a neutral term. Whether one considers it to be immmoral or not is a separate matter. I personally consider it to be immoral due to the means that are necessary to make it successful. Integration is another matter, but then that requires a combination of not only coercion but also cooperation.

Remiel, que crois-tu que je suis?

Peut-être parce que je ne connais pas les langues officielles seulement, mais aussi deux langues officieuses. Comme résultat, j'ai accès à des communautés officieuses auquelles plusieurs francophones et anglophones sont aveugles.

I'be found many Japanese restaurants are Chinese too. That said, the simple fact that I know Chinese might also affect my experiences compared to Arabic which I do not know. But between English and Chinese, I think part of it is that most French speakers know English extremely well. As a resuult, French might be statistically high and heard between friends and family (just like in my case), but otherwise invisible in the business sector since they all speak English so well we don't even know. Since some Chinese are weaker in English, it's easier to just switch to Chinese and so make it more obvious. To take an extreme example, imagine a city where one quarter of the population speaks English only, one half English and French, and one quarter Chinese only. Clearly the game of numbers aside, Chinese would be more dominant in business than French in such a city even though we might here more French in private conversations in the streets. Though this is an exaggeration of reality, it does illustrate what might be happening here. Then add to that that if the English and French bilinguals mostly work for the government, that would only further increase the dominance of Chinese over French in spite numbers alone. Outside the downtown core though, I have no doubt that French dominates far more. But if I rarely go there, then for me who, whenever I visit Ottawa it's usually downtown, then yes Chinese is more useful.

Now that I think about it more, I think it has to do with the following. French speakers speak English better than Chinese speakers usually. As a result, while many know French, their knowledge of English makes them invisible in the private sector where language laws are not enforced as much. Chinese speakers, not knowing English as well, are more noticed. In a sense this makes a knowledge if French more redundant than a knowledge of Chinese, resulting in Chinese being used more than French in the private sector. Add to that that with many French speakers getting hired in the government, this takes away their representation in the private sector, further increasing Chinese dominance over French there.

I've switched to French in some cases only to be told.

Sure I hear French in the streets more than Chinese, and usually only visit Orleans, Casselman, or Gatineau to visit family. Otherwise when I visit Ottawa I'm usually in the downtown area and have found that in business outside of government Chinese is more dominant than French. Even at work I use French to communicate with Quebec by email but rarely with Ottawa. Now I also acknowledge that part of this might be illusory in that I may have interacted with French speakers in English without realizing it whereas the Chinese will likely speak English less well. This may play a role in the perception too in that I might continue a conversation in English with the French speaker without knowing but switch to Chinese when I see the Chinese may be struggling more in English, but even that would make Chinese more useful than French in some cases and thus warrant allowing more second language options in school.

I'm not sure about current realities when I'd visited Ottawa a while back. Though I speak French with my mother and my extended family on her side and though I speak English better than Chinese, and though I personally use French but not Chinese at work, I still found myself using Chinese far more frequently than French in Ottawa, whether in shops, at a bank, and at restaurants. I think it's more a matter of BC catching up to the reality more quickly than Ontario is.

This brings up another question. I've come across many monolingual English speakers defending compulsory French online, some of them quite aggressively. What makes monolingual English speakers so aggressively pri-French is a mystery I have yet to decipher.

In BC you could choose between French, Spanish, German, Russian, Arabic, Mandarin Chinese with simplified characters, and Japanese. In my opinion, even more options should be added to allow BC to develop trade and other relations with more countries. This let's the schools, parents, and learners to respond more freely to the worldwide language market. BC also allows for a wide range of choices. If I am correct, neither Quebec nor Ontario give such choices. It's all French in Ontario and all English in Quebec. This prevents schools from adapting adequately to the language market, resulting in mismatches between the language needs of international businesses and the languages the kids learn in school. I know French and even I find Chinese to be more useful to me in BC.

La grande majorité des anglophones faillissent de bien apprendre le français, ce qui en fait une grande perte d'argent. Par exemple, je peux imaginer qu'un habitant de Vancouver pourrait mieux apprendre le chinois ou de certaines parties des prairies, l'allemend grâce à la réalité de la démographie locale. Le bilinguisme officiel reflète rarement la réalité locale au Canada.

Though learning a second language is beneficial, why must it necessarily be French?

If it's voluntary, then it's not genicide.

I don't understand. The moment assimilation is done through coercive laws, does it not automatically become forced however subtle the laws are? In that sence, the difference between forced assimilation and cultural genocide falls in a grey area of intensity. One could legitimately argue that they are the same. Of course we could distinguish between forced assimilation and forced integration. As an example, making English the compulsory language I'd instruction in school could be viewed as part of a policy of assimilation or cultural genocide whereas making English the compulsory second language in public schools while leaving the choice of first language to the school itself could be viewed as a policy of forced integration in that it still allows for the maintenance of the mother language and culture.

Then the Feds offer their policy or nothing. Quebec would look bad to turn it down.

So should we forcefully rip the kids out of their parents arms, send them to schools hundreds of miles away, and stick needles through their tongues when they dare speak the only language they know? Those who established the system used the argument that such extreme measures were required for assimilation to occur, and on that point they were probably right. But then that us assimilation as a policy into question.

Why could there be no middle ground? Bill 101 is provincial law.

Even if we ignore the survivors' claims and look only at the government's own records of the time, the government itself acknowledges that its clear and explicit objective amounted to an act of cultural genocide, the explicit goal being to annihilate indigenous languages and cultures by all means. Even when cases of abuse and death rates were brought to the government's attention, the Government, rather than questioning them, responded by accepting death as the price to pay for those who fail to adapt but that the policy must be unwavering. Just read "They Came for the Children", available in PDF format on the TRC's own site. Are we now going to say that we can't trust the government's own policies and correspondence of the time?

The Federal government could choose to grant Quebec's wish only in part by allowing monolingualism but without imposing it.

True, but BIill 101 is separate from the legislation the Federal government would legislate to allow Federal institutions in Quebec to function monolingually. The Federal legislation would be just that and nothing more, not to be confused with Bill 101, not to mention that the Federal government could even decide to extend it nationwide whereby federal institutions in Ontario could serve monolingually too. In most of Ontario, that would likely mean English.

How does freeing a Federal office from the obligation to provide services in more than one language equate with supporting the oppression of language rights? According to that principle, we'd have to require the government to serve in all languages lest we "oppress" one. No wonder the government is in debt. Abrogating a privilege that was exclusive to a certain group so as to make the diffetent groups more equal does not constitute "oppression" in my book.

Why would they agree to it anywhere given their official support for official bilingualism? Same goes for the Liberals, Greens and Conservatives.

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/canada/montreal/charest-proposes-broadening-quebec-language-laws-1.1201421I stand corrected. It was a campaign promise made by the Liberal Party of Quebec in an election campaign. I can't see the NDP, LPC, GPC, and the CPC agreeing to this since it conflicts with official bilingualism which these parties officially defend. I could see the Libertarian Party supporting this so as to establish a precedent for other provinces. But then we'd see an odd coalition between Canada's indigenous peoples (those who most oppose official bilingualism) and the Libertarian Party of Canada given tensions between them in the past.

I'd lived in central Quebec and can ascertain from observation that the vast majority, probably well over 90%, do not know English to a practical degree beyond passing tests to get their high school diploma.

Consecutive Québec governments have requested this. Why a good idea? Official monolingualism saves money among other things, plus it would set a precedent for other province.