Leafless

Traditional marriage is failing---WHY?

How utterly humiliating!

The U.S. like any other country has ALWAYS used universal scientific notation and metric in the scientific field. So what does it matter what system the little guy uses for every day use. For all practical matters the Imperial system works fine. In Canada it was the Liberals (who favour European tradition, especially from France) who latched on to metric knowing full well the U.S. was keeping the imperial system for domestic use.

So, then why don't we just leave out the picture, like most obit's were anyways before publishers decided: 'Why don't we make a little extra moolah by including a photograph'. An obit is the same price picture or no picture. Cost is determined by the amount of space ie; 2 columns x 5". Whether or not this space is filled with text or photo or a combination makes no difference. So, more space = more money. Our newspaper pertaining for instance automobile photo's that accompany the ad, cost x-number of dollars.

Firstly, language is a skill. Secondly, culture and race have their correlations, but one is not the component of another. Language is a component of culture and culture is a component of race. "All languages have a system of sounds, words, and sentences that can adequately communicate the content of culture." http://anthro.palomar.edu/language/language_1.htm Language is only a skill if there is a demand for it, unlike the artificial demand of federal 'official bilingualism'. Here is some more federal propaganda for you. http://www.ocol-clo.gc.ca/faq.asp?Lang=English#q1

What confusion? I think most Canadians are now aware of the skills needed to work for the federal government. Canadians are FORCED to comply to an undemocratically implemented language policy. Are you suggesting their is no confusion and no dissension in the ranks of the federal public service owing to the federal 'official bilingualism policy. BWA-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha. Maybe you can tell me why Francophone's are so overly represented (represented regarding Canada's total Francophone population) in the ranks of the federal public service? What about other Canadians from other provinces? Should they not be entitled to their FAIR SHARE of federal employment?

No, because in this case both languages are domestic. The point was the dealership was FORCED by government law, to sell his competitors domestically produced vehicles as in comparison to the federal government dictating and implementing an undemocratic linguistic social policy.

So, then why don't we just leave out the picture, like most obit's were anyways before publishers decided: 'Why don't we make a little extra moolah by including a photograph'.

I don't exactly grasp what you mean by "bicultural"... Canada has multiple cultures, and if you mean "two fully intertwined distict cultures", I'd see that as one new culture, so please explain! If you don't exactly grasp what I mean by "bicultural", then why don't you include my full reply to the statement you submitted??????? Then maybe you would understand or make it possible for me to reply in a coherent manner. You are purposely trying to obfuscate my replies to accommodate your constant insignificant lecturing and lowly attacks.

This is a matter of opinion and again you are dictating your view which is not law of the land. This is what makes it discriminatory, a dictated one sided linguistic view in an 'official multicultural country' that is NOT 'bicultural'. Even if the country was bicultural, it is still discriminatory since the federal governments official bilingual policy is dictated by force in a manner not consistent with the freedoms associated with a capitalistic country.

Yes, it is an attack on the English language by the federal government dictating an undemocratic linguistic social policy. This is like an automobile dealership being forced to sell his competitors automobiles along with his own. You don't seem to understand culture is a component of race, so to force another cultures language into an existing main stream commercial language is a 'racist attack'. This devalues common usage of the English language within the federal government public service and is also a source of confusion and a cause of dissension concerning the competitive quest for power. There has never been a national referendum on this issue so I don't know how you can make the claim "it only adds to national unity" and forget your manipulative polls. Another area of concern is that there is virtually no controls to limit linguistic abuse relating to power.

Who do you think reads obituaries? I have been told it is mostly older people reading about acquaintance and friends that they have lost touch with. In which case placing a younger picture is certainly more appropriate. People who have had an ongoing relationship with the person up until their death are not likely to read an obituary about the person. Obit's are popular with a lot of readers as this publication tells the tale. Just another gossip column to many people. http://www.nicholascountian.com/home/modules.php?name=Top

I don't think my deceased father would have wanted his emaciated cancer picture to go in his obit. No of course not, but don't you think a more recent picture would suffice rather than a 25 year totally outdated one?

Excellent observation! But other than that don't you not think it's hypocritical. Would a photograph on a bus pass or passport be a valid document if the picture was obsolete, with no resemblance to to what you currently look like?

I have a problem with this. All these characters who include a picture of themselves in the obituary notices are mostly years younger than what they actually are. Why go to all the trouble of a lengthily obituary and include a picture of a 25 year old when that person is in fact 80. No one recognizes this photograph and for all practical purposes related to the obituary notice, is useless. Is this the right thing to do or should the family either omit the photograph completely or publish one that is up to date?

No you are wrong. In order for that to be accomplished, individual provinces must first become 'officially bilingual'. If this is your personal ideology fine, but to promote it in the sense you are , it is a form of Nazism including racism. I could understand your logic if the federal government was responsible for every one's welfare including employment, but this is NOT a communist country, it is a freer capitalistic country, so what the federal government is doing in the way of 'officially degrading the English language by law' is so totally undemocratic it is incomprehensible, but is nevertheless happening. I think it is due time to have a national referendum on whether or not Canada wishes to retain Quebec in confederation.

No one is claiming ALL Francophone's are separatist but relating to the last referendum, around 50% are. Who are the several anglophone separatist in Quebec? If your making reference to an English group that does not want to be part of any type of Quebec separation, it is perfectly understandable and it is their right, as currently there is no political process to accommodate Quebec's potential separation wish. You say "we could invite tonnes of French speaking immigrants to populate English Canada just like the English did." I must ask you who is "WE", since Quebec is doing just that in its own province, mainly importing French immigrants from African countries. There was never any law barring French immigration to Canada. Your just angry because the countries so many immigrants come from, speak English rather than French. The feds, as you say, do employ bilingual people no matter where they come, because they have to or they would be accused of discrimination, which is the case anyways as 78% of the federal public service bilingual positions are occupied by Francophone's. http://www.hrma-agrh.gc.ca/ollo/or-ar/stud...1/index02_e.asp

Wow, that's a whole lot of spite! An English speaking federal civil servant who learns a new skill for the job is doing him/herself a favor. Sure if more do it, it's easier to expect the skill out of candidates, but that's a good thing. Don't you wish fed servants were more skilled? It's not going to hurt anyone. No its not spite, its simply being objectionable concerning a federal government implementing its own discriminatory law to discredit the English language and its users, concerning the majority commercial language of Canada as being an artificially inferior language not suited for the federal public service. You refer learning French as a "skill" and I refer to it as an unnecessary discriminatory imposed condition of qualifications that has no bearing on the skill of an individual but simply describes the 'totalitarian nature' of the federal government not being in line with normal democratic and freer ways of a capitalistic country.

Not true! Do you know any Canadian history? Until America had independance day, there were hardly anyone speaking any language other than French and aboriginal languages in the 51st state. Then the loyalists moved North, then when England clued in that they had all this land in North America even after losing the United States, they sent a bunch of Brits, Scots and Irishmen, quite often to teach the loyalists how to speak European English because the loyalists by then were talking like Americans! Time went by, then there was an agreement that the Francophones could explore and settle, but could not bring their language with them outside lower Canada. They explored several parts of the Western Canada and United States, and settled. That's the main reason why French is the only language spoken in certain small towns out west. Basically, French was the language of choice until the loyalists came in. Now, people want to speak English because either that is what is spoken at home or because America exports it's dollar, language and culture to the world. It's effortless for Canadians to celebrate the English language with the American mass media, yet anything available in French is on a smaller scale or quite often European, which is of a very different culture. That's why French speaking Canadians feel alone with their combination of language and culture, and do everything they can to hold on to it. Of course with Globalization, less spoken languages disappear and a select few grow in importance, but as long as French remains part of the big four, and a third of Canadians speak French (while a quarter of Canadians speak it as a first language) and feel strongly about conserving their culture and language, it won't disappear. They were here first. Just because the loyalists came in from other states does not mean we cannot share Canada. Also, it seems that the monolingual Anglophones who are against bilingual policies want to treat the francophones the same way the early Canadians treated the aboriginals. Just because one of the two people are more numerous and speak a more important language internationally does not mean that they should choose their language over all others. The country is English because after France lost on 'The Plains of Abraham' they relinquished all rights to Canada to Britain and therefore were insignificant but nevertheless were one of the original four founding provinces that formed Canada and were given rights concerning their own language, religion and civil law. The Americans back then were just as British or English speaking as the loyalist. The countries Britain, U.S. and Canada were basically an English entity and did have great influence concerning language.

Illegal? Under what law? Under all federal documents, America's 51st state (the one with the maple leaf) has two official languages. How can you possibly describe Canada as being a bilingual country when the definition of bilingual is: "able to speak two languages esp. fluently." Countries cannot talk so the word must be used in relation to a person who is able to speak two languages. Languages fall under provincial authority and even if the federal government ever made an attempt to improperly describe the country as being bilingual, it would only be able to do so if all provinces in Canada adapted both official languages for legal usage by residents of their respective provinces. "Canada is a bilingual country" is used, but is a totally wrong way to describe something that does not legally exist. Federally speaking the 'official languages of Canada' is a legal commodity within the federal government but 'officially bilingual' is a poor and wrong way to describe it and is nothing more than federal propaganda to make it sound impressive.

Your the clod that diverted this debate to Indians and DNA. We were debating European explorers and not inconsequential land claims going back to prehistoric times.

Not practically. A francophone isn't going to do great in Calgary or Edmonton. They may survive in Toronto. Now how do you figure that, geoffrey? In all of Canada outside of Quebec their are only 113,175 Francophone's that speak French only. Even in Quebec there are 3,831,350 Francophone's that speak French only. The other 2,907,700 Francophone's are bilingual. The remainder of Quebec's population 327,000 are English speaking, with a further 59,490 that don't speak English or French. So basically we are talking 113,175 Francophone's outside of Quebec that possibly won't do well in English Canada. The other 3,831,350 Francophone's that speak French only in Quebec probably won't be seeking work outside their province. So in effect we have the federal government turning Canada linguistically inside out to satisfy 113,175 Francophone's who speak French only outside of Quebec. This would not make economic or cultural sense in any other country in the world other than Canada.

If you can have slavery without coericion then yes it should be legal. I'm not being sarcastic of course. We do have legal slavery which is best defined as being ' a helpless victim of some dominating influence'.

The federal government can't declare Canada a bilingual country, its illegal. The only way the feds could do that is if all provinces in Canada voluntarily become officially bilingual, which you will never see, so forget it. You know it really makes me laugh with Canada's official languages. English never required any sort of official status since it is already the majority commercial language by choice. Official languages only served as a blatant discriminatory attempt by the federal government to try to force official bilingualism on Canada but failed miserably. Any English speaking federal civil servant who bows to the pressures of resorting to learn French for federal employment is only jeapordizing the future of those English speakers who have no intention of bowing to federal official bilingualism for federal employment. They are supporting a dictatorial federal government. The federal government IMO has no business outside of Quebec implementing any type of bilingual policy since all Canadian provinces outside of Quebec are majority English. Besides what federal government would possibly endanger its own entity by hiring francophone's from a province that contain a large percentage of separatist who's main goal is to break up the country.

Don't bother to post if you can't back up your BS with proof.