Second-class Canadian

Seeing that I was discussing socialist parties, I figured most people would guess that socialist parties will tend to have higher taxes, spend more on universal public education, trades and professional education for the unemployed, etc.For this reason, in order to not insult people's intelligence by explaining to them what a socialist is, I'd decided to focus on the differences instead. Does it surprise you that Sweden has higher taxes and spends more on education, etc. Probably not. It's less likely one will be familiar with the differences.

Are you suggesting that ethnicity should trump qualifications?

I never denied that. They also have co-determination laws granting workers representation on boards of directors. My point was though (and your post actually reinforces mine) that they are very different at a very fundamental level. So why doesn't the NDP propose co-determination laws? They also have a higher VAT. I believe the NDP is not fond of the GST. Another fundamental difference. All this to say that New Democrats who like to compare themselves to European socialists don't know what they're talking about.

The word "some" is open to interpretation. I'm sure it's a small number, but there are still some.

Canadian labour-socialists sometimes point to social-democracy or even social-corporatism in Sweden and other countries as proof of how socialism can work. Yet the contrast between them is significant. Let's compare Sweden, long ruled by the Social Democratic Party, and the Federal NDP's vision of socialism. Sweden has long been pro-free-trade, has no enforced minimum wage, has right to work laws, has a national school voucher program, and a two-tiered health care system, and promotes public-private partnerships and values balanced budgets. It also places a high value on the Universal Declaration on Human rights (one of the arguments the right used in favour of school vouchers but that the left chose to not challenge once implemented). Though it's true that the Christian Democratic Party introduced some of these, the SDP never reversed them when it had the chance to do so. Setting Sweden aside for a moment, let's look at the European Union which is generally considered to be more socialist than Canada. A few northern European jurisdictions have a national school voucher program, and two-tiered Healthcare is common across the EU even under a Socialist Party government in France. Of course I'm not denying that there are similarities between Canadian and European socialist parties, but simply that one can't point to them as proof that the NDP's vision would work. The NDP is pro-free-trade in principle, but with so many caveats that it's likely to end up being quite anti-free-trade in practice. It fanatically opposes public-private partnerships in most of their forms. And Ironically enough, it does not mention the more socialist policies that are in place in Europe. It stays mum on the separate school system while the Ontario Greens and PC's (both more conservative than the NDP provincially) opposed it in one way or another. If I had to guess at the reason, it's that socialist parties in the EU actually formed national government and so had to modify their policies to practical experience, whereas the NDP, never having formed a government Federally, has never yet been confronted with the experience of its policies. That of course should not have prevented the NDP from learning from the experiences of more successful socialist parties with more open minds in foreign jurisdictions. Inasmuch as I can sympathize with the intentions of the Canadian left, it must learn to adapt to reality. Until it does that, it will likely never form government, or at least never win two elections in a row, Federally. Part of the reason the right in Canada has won so many elections is precisely because, like the left and right in Europe, it can adapt to reality. Just as socialists in Europe have adopted those capitalist ideas that work, conservatives in Canada have adopted socialist ideas that work. They've been pragmatic, and that is a skill that I believe the Canadian left has yet to develop.

World Federation is a ways off for now, so we need to focus on what governments can do.

Strange that. My closest friends have different religions, languages, and skin colours. 5 hey don't seem bothered by me either. Any stats to back your claim? Again, maybe these townships would be good.

You bring up many good points. That's why I say "in the mean time..." But I take issue with that last point. World Federation and decentralization are not necessarily incompatible. If they were, all democracies would be city states.

Why is not a single leader advocating withdrawal from the UN?

So why not establish an international democratic Assembly? But as I mentioned above... in the mean time...

I could support lowering the legal age of maturity (and consequently voting age) to fifteen. To want to punish a ten year old as an adult, what are we thinking... or was he fidteen. But then there may be mitigating circumstances if he was a dependent.

How much did the court case cost the taxpayer?

This from another thread: I'm sure some of this type would appreciate the establishment of townships only their type could visit or reside in.

Lack of enforceable international law is a problem.

I'd even remove language requirements from the packaging and labelling act so as to increase consumer choice and pressure on producers to lower prices, improve quality, or specialize.

I should have clarified. While I support the principle of an official language of government administration, I limit it to that. Quebec's Bill 101 goes way too far and is way too intrusive. The private sector should be free to operate in the language of its choice.

We still need to learn a common language to communicate. At least in Quebec he needs to learn only French to work for the Provincial Goverment, same for English in Ontario for the most part. Federally though he then has both imposed on him. So to put people on a relatively more equal footing, why not join Quebec in requesting that Federal institutions operate monolingually according the the local language.

By having French as it's sole official language, the Quebec Government not only saves money but also puts the province's English speakers on a more equal footing with everyone else. The Federal Government could learn from this.

Then we wonder why the English and the French are so over represented in the Federal Government.

No, I don't get what you mean. Yes I support eliminating the separate school system, but why should an Algonquin in Ontario trying to develop his language in an underfunded school then be expected to learn both English and French to work for the Federal Government, so have to learn three languages just because some French speaker in Ontario or an English speaker in Quebec is too lazy to learn even two languages?

How is it a separate issue? I'll take Quebec as an example. All non-linguistic qualifications being equal, a Quebec-Sign-Language-French bilingual, an Algonquin-French bilingual, and an English-French bilingual all have an equal chance of working for the Quebec Government, but the English-French bilingual has unfair advantage in the Federal Government. As it turns out, Quebec has long requested that Federal institutions in Quebec operate monolingually in French. I support Quebec's request and believe the other provinces should join it in making the same request for English in their provinces. This would help put indigenous candidates on an at least somewhat more equal footing in accessing government jobs based more on merit than English and French.

"I think preferential treatment for one mythology should go before a real, existing language." Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by this.

French is part of my heritage, but it is also not threatened with extinction. It is a thriving language across France, Quebec and parts of Belgium, Switzerland, Africa, New Brunswick and South Eastern Ontario, and therefore does not need a special privileged status. Give us school vouchers and we'll establish our schools to the extent the market will allow it. Another part of my heritage is a belief in justice. Governments should no longer be diverting funds towards isolated French speakers at the cost of underfunding schools on reserves. The indigenous languages are part of our heritage too, are they not? As a French Canadian, I want to be treated more equally with indigenous Canadians and not in any privileged manner. The same should apply to isolated English speakers in Central Quebec.

There is also a separate Protestant school board in Ontario. As for the language provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, one study calculated their cost at 2.4 billion dollars yearly. Meanwhile, schools on reserves are underfunded by 2000 to 3000 dollars yearly compared to similar schools off reserve. Given that according to Statistics Canada 2011 abut 60% of indigenous peoples on reserves over age sixteen are functionally literate in neither official language, how can we defend such subsidies towards a privileged status for English and French while schools on reserves go underfunded?

I'm a French Canadian and I'd consider a friendly parting of ways with Quebec to be a small price to pay to abrogate the separate school system and official bilingualism from the Constitution. Why should we hold ourselves hostage over Quebec?