Kapitän Rotbart

@guyser: ?? You're making false connections. A genius can act like a moron, I will admit that both genii and non-genii are capable of many behaviors. However, being a genius is not defined by one's behavior, but rather by one's IQ. A gay "acting like" a straight guy... I'll admit the possibility, but wtf? Do you mean a gay guy acting normal, or a gay guy having heterosexual relations? If it's just an act, the individual is defined by their genuine behavior, which in this case would be homosexual, but if heterosexual intercourse is also part of the individual's behavior, that would make 'em bisexual. @Mad_Michael: Depends on how you define "good government" for instance... a gov't may be in favor or against casual Fridays, being completely behavioral, yet no impact on its ethics nor efficiency. If a good gov't is any gov't with crime bellow a certain rate, few or no scandals, and supports and enforces laws which are universally accepted, then good governments are not that rare. If a good government is limited to a government where absolutely no money is wasted, then a good government becomes an impossibility. I see your point, but a good government is not defined by behavior, but rather by performance. Same goes for happy marriage and good kids. Their rarity depends on how inclusive or exclusive you are at defining these things. These are determined by quantitative criteria. Because they are not behavioral, I'm not comparing them to homosexuality. Some jewels are rarities, and quite valued. The value of anomalies (solely defined by behavior, a qualitative criteria, and not by quantitative criteria) depends on society. Thanks for the benefit of doubt, but I don't really need it. I'm sure I know enough about homosexual behavior without peeping... the flamboyant gays marching down gay parades reveals more gay behavior than I need. If I really wanted to know more about their behavior, I could read up on their psychological patterns, which don't particularly interest me either. I don't have to observe it, I can simply read what defines a homosexual, which is same-sex intercourse, which is behavior, a qualitative criteria. What is my real point? I thought I had made it clear. I should not be expected to cater to homosexuals. I should be able to assume that everyone is heterosexual unless told otherwise. I wish the gov't would do the same and simply assume that everyone is heterosexual. I don't want a government supporting behavior to which I object, because otherwise I am paying taxes to a government who is shoving nonsense down my throat at my expense. I have no interest in personally interfering gay people's lives, I just don't want the gov't recognizing this behavior as equal to heterosexuals. I have no method of knowing who is gay, and I have no interest in knowing either. In other words, I won't stop someone from being gay, just like I won't stop a smoker from smoking, but I don't want my gov't to cater to (bahavior-based) anomalies using my tax dollar to do so. I also am sick of pro-gay propaganda claiming that homosexuality is normal. I also don't uderstand why Rue was arguing that men who violate boys are non-homosexual pedophiles unless they have sexual relations with men... it's almost like defending the pedophile, making the pedophile seem slightly more normal.

@Pat Coghlan: I have no reason for believing otherwise. I'm not arguing against this. It may be driven from ideology, but it's an ideal that could become true. The fact that money is wasted on bilingualism is not because of bilingualism itself, but rather because the gov't has to waste money on something, due to inevitable inefficiency. Hence the reason I prefer a much smaller gov't. Yeah, but if sending someone on language training is a low-cost method of getting 'em out of the office (compared to much worse possible outcomes), then these managers come out ahead! If it prevents bigger problems within an office, it's most certainly a good option to have around. I still don't know why people would be sent on language training shortly preceding retirement... it would just make sense to consider them the legacy staff who will soon retire anyway. I don't completely agree with the current system; it needs a lot of work, but there's still hope for Canada.

I'll explain the difference. Homosexuality is a behavioral issue. Genius, intelligence, good looks, wealth, etc. are characteristics and their rarity depends on how you define them. If you define genii by, say those with 120+ IQ, then you're down to say 15% of the general population, which can then be considered a rarity. If you consider a happy marriage a marriage that doesn't result in divorce, then in certain regions happy marriages are quite normal. If you consider a marriage where the two married to each other never have the slightest conflict of interest, then you're considering an impossibility. My point is that sexual orientation, which relates to behavior (which can begin and end at free will without external intervention, and can be addressed by a shrink) has no relation whatsoever to other rarities. I'll agree that both homosexuals and, say genii are minorities, but a genius cannot choose to no longer be a genius without external intervention (for instance drugs, etc.), whereas a homosexual can choose to no longer practice homosexuality. By the way, the questions you have so far posted are: Homosexuality an anomaly? What is this gibberish? I'll answer the first of these questions with "yes" and the second with another question: "where's your sense of humor?"

@Riverwind: 1) The tests are a variable which could be improved. I'd like to see "bilingual" employees be equally tested in English and French regardless of first language. 2) Winding down with a smaller sample still offers the same proportion of excellent candidates, and considering the gov't gives its employees little room for innovation due to the inevitable lack of efficiency in the public sector, even if we renounce a few "excellent" managers, it's not like they'd have much room to make much of a difference in gov't offices. That's why I'd like to see much more public work privatized. @Pat Coghlan: I didn't know that. However, isn't most gov't work in the NRC, whether EX-1 or not? Supplying such expensive language training is an example of gov't inefficiency... an efficient gov't (which I have not yet known to exist) would probably prefer to reimburse employees for the fees of their second language training in an adult high school for instance, with a maximum reimbursement budget (given the gov't opts for mandatory language training). I prefer the idea where bilingualism is simply required as opposed to paying lumps into training, but if the gov't opts for language training, there are much cheaper ways of doing it. I acknowledge the above as inevitable government inefficiency. The fact that a certain group is over-represented in gov't offices does not affect the average Canadian and is not an issue for me. I may or may not work for the federal gov't, that's up to me, but it's more important to me that my gov't represents itself properly. Billions don't have to be wasted... there are more efficient ways of doing this. However, the gov't has to waste money on something due to the inevitable inefficiency of the public sector. Luxembourg, Switzerland and Jersey (the country) all have roughly a 10% Portuguese-speaking population, yet no incentives are established for this group/language to be represented. Although Canada may be young, we have agreed on two official languages, and anyone wanting to work for the Canadian gov't or for any company in a location where it would be relatively important like the NRC, should essentially know the two Canadian languages. I'm not denying the existance of other languages in Canada, but Canada has given itself the responsibility to offer service in two specific languages, and any other language would be out of courtesy. @jbg: Fairness? I'm for justice yet against fairness. Some people will naturally have certain advantages over others in any system other than communism, where all nationals are robbed of all advantages. Apparently the supply is more than enough for the federal gov't demand for bilingualism, so it's not an issue, and Ottawa has a lower unemployment rate than Toronto, Montréal and Canada overall, so bilingual policies are clearly not affecting Ottawans' every day life.

That's because virtually all of Québec's federal work in the QC is in Gatineau. I'd imagine it would be the same would go for federal work in the RoC outside the NCR... few jobs would be classified as bilingual. I actually don't care if a group of Canadians is over-represented in federal offices... I see this as completely arbitrary, and it's not affecting Canadians' day-to-day life. It's the same way I see minority representation in the American gov't... Black and Hispanic people are still under-represented (despite Bush has a more multi-cultural gov't than Clinton did), yet this isn't an issue for me. It seems to only be an issue for those who make it an issue. I favor advancing bilingualism because Canada is a country of two languages and because the federal government does not pertain to any province, it should as an entity reflect the the fact that we have two languages by being skilled in both languages. It's mostly a patriotism issue for me, but if you can convince me of an actual problem pertaining to Francophones' over-representation in federal offices and bilingual policies in general in Ottawans' every day life, maybe I may reconsider.

@Pat Coghlan: Sometimes the personal opinion of some on arbitrary aspects of the government system which has little or no effect in people's everyday life isn't worth debating in parliament. If a group of Canadians is overly represented in parliament and no one is suffering from it, then it really isn't an issue. An accountability program for the language classification of gov't positions could be a good idea, but then it's legislation and implementation costs should be considered (although I agreed with the contents of Harper's accountability program, I did find it a tad expensive, and I don't know if Canadian society will really benefit... it's hard to say). As for quotas, please inform me of a possible "quota" which would be effective, yet non-discriminating and doesn't go against the OLA nor the constitution. The idea of regulating the proportion of Canadian representation in gov't offices still seems completely trivial to me, but if it's important to you, and you think quotas would be a good idea, please propose a "quota" that could actually pass... otherwise it's no more than a (probably impossible) dream. Indeed there is. It would be unfortunate if the feds/the RoC sinks down to Québec's level (well, depending on the issue, but for limiting the use of official languages as opposed to expanding their use is not an example that I want to follow).

@Mad_Michael: When refering to anomalies I was strictly refering to behavior. Being a genius, rich, beautiful etc. may be a rarity, but just because one has a lot of money or a good learning capacity does not mean they will necessarily behave differently. By the way, beauty or "good looks" is in the eye of the beholder, so although we could agree that it's also a rarity, it still depends on the individual. I wouldn't classify ideal kids, marriages, gov't as rarities... it depends on "how good" it has to be to be in this upper category. If you're pretty inclusive, then it's not that rare, if you're very exclusive, it's an impossibility (because no marriage, kids, gov't is perfect, and neither are we, understanding that perfect means doing absolutely no wrong and doing everything that is right). Indeed. In Britain a fag is a cigarette for instance. Soviet Canuckistan is almost part of America, and we share a lot of slang. If I say that homosexuals are gay, everyone in Canada, USA and American film viewers around the world will understand me (provided they don't watch dubbed versions like the French, the Germans, the Hungarians and a few others). If you want to fight Americanisation (which I write with an S for the purpose of irony), you're more than welcome to do so, but I still state that homosexuals are gay.

@Pat Coghlan: But how would you word such quotas to not go against the OLA and the constitution? I honnestly don't see the real problem in having a group of Canadians over-represented in Federal offices. It's not like in Rwanda where it was an insane difference, spuring racism and genocide between the two dominant tribes. Even if everyone in federal offices were either Francophone, Anglophone, etc. it wouldn't result in genocide, it just might increase spite a little. Government services would still be dominantly available in the locale's dominant language, so it wouldn't be a real issue. If it is an issue, however (and I don't see why, please let me know if there's any reason for believing this to be an issue), then what should be done is enforce another multi-million dollar accountability legislation overseeing every decision for classifying a job as bilingual. I don't know how you would possibly word such "quotas" to regulate bilingual job classification... I can only see an accountability program possibly succeeding this objective. A quota would be to directly influence how many Anglophones and how many Francophones OR how many Québecers and how many Canucks from the RoC are to be hired, whether a position requires bilingualism or not. If the federal gov't only consisted of almost exclusively one of the two language groups of Canucks, then the province(s) of the other language group would probably insist on a more decentralized gov't meaning more power to the provinces.

@Rue: Appologies accepted. You've gone up a tad in the respect-o-meter. I think we can narrow our disagreements and misunderstandings down a tad Putting words in my mouth. OMG = Oh, my goodness! Homosexuality is not defined by age. I will agree that the psychological effects/intentions/etc. would be different if a man makes love to another man of his age, a much older man or even a boy... but because this is two males participating in intercourse, it is homosexual. I am not trying to fuse the two; men who have intercourse with girls but not with boys are clearly not gay. Not if you use the proper definition of a homosexual, which is not defined by age. Look at it this way, not everything must be either the same or opposites. Using the following words as an example: "input", "output", "result" and "sphere". Input is the opposite of output. Result is the same as output. Sphere is neither the opposite nor the same as output. A sphere can be an input, it can be an output/result, it can be neither, and it can be both. A person can be gay, can be a pedophile, can be neither, or can be both. Since "bisexuality" has been defined, it has been universally understood that one cannot be both heterosexual and homosexual, because that would make them bisexual. Unless a word comes up to define those who are both gay and pedophile, to those which the labels apply, they are simple gay and pedophile. I don't recall claiming to be or not to be a shrink. There may be different psychological patterns between men who have intercourse with other men as men who have intercourse with boys, but both cases are included in the definition of homosexuality. For the purpose of arguing the proportions, let me rephrase. Given men who have intercourse with boys can also be categorized as homosexuals, there is a larger proportion of pedophiles amongst homosexuals as amongst heterosexuals. And that has been proven. The real reason I brought it up was to add to the discussion. You stated that it would be erroneous to say that homosexuals are pedophiles, and I say that one can assume that most homosexuals are not pedophiles, yet given the conditions I have mentioned at the beginning of this paragraph, they present a higher proportion, and if such a rumor is going around (that homosexuals are pedophiles), the difference in proportions would probably explain the root of this "rumor" (that is, if there is such a rumor). I'm well aware that I'm not both. I agree. Yellow apples and green apples have different characteristics... yet both are apples. I only have one TV station where I'm at, broadcasted on four frequencies (no cable nor bunny ears). All that runs is soaps at bad resolution, so you can imagine that even in the most boring times at night when I'm alone (and if my computer were down) I probably still wouldn't watch it. Personal attack on a general group? How on earth does that make sense?! I'm sure gays reading this would respond "yes we feel collectively personally attacked!" Well, if gays can't feel good about themselves as long as they are gay, maybe it's because they chose the dark side (sorry about the pun). Yeah, all Canadians, English speakers of the world and everyone else of all cultures will gladly refer to people of a given sexual orientation by a Hollywood star... right, see how far that goes. I'm sorry but unless I have Wikipedia at my fingertips, I may not know who you're refering to when naming some old Hollywood stars (I don't even know all the new ones). Labeling people of a given sexual orientation according to a Hollywood star can be your thing, I think I'll pass though. A lot of gay activists get upset when people use the expression "that's so gay", whereas I prefer to substitute that expression with "that's so homosexual/homoerotic/homosapian". Makes for a good convo-starter. I personally like vikings more than pirates, and I actually have a red beard (not dyed, yet I'm not red headed). Hence the name.

@capricorn: The humility is appreciated. Francophones only represent 28% of federal positions?! That's hardly disproportional (an advancement of 3% is no where neer "flooding federal offices"). That part of the OLA is worded reasonably I'd say. It gives Francophones, Anglophones and everyone else "equal chances". Putting up quotas to regulate the proportions would inevitably (unless you can prove otherwise) be explicit discrimination, considering the current system is based on equal chances. Why do we even need to engineer/maintain a certain proportion of people of a given language in public institutions' offices?! If Francophones are flooding gov't offices because Anglophones are not qualified due to a lack of language skills, then the only way the government can change this without inciting discrimination is by heavily promoting learning French and offering huge bursaries to those who do. Honnestly though, if it's 3% higher than the true population proportion, the sample of gov't employees is not that skewed.

@capricorn: How would you suggest implementing such a balance given the OLA? A possible parameter would be to put language or regional quotas. -Regional quotas would result in filling those offices with Franco-Ontarians to compensate for the number of Québecers, having Franco-Ontarians represent the RoC; -Language quotas would result in flooding federal offices with Anglo-Québecers because they are the single largest froup of bilingual Anglophones, meaning income is paid to Québecers, who are paying taxes to a socialist provincial gov't. I'm kind of curious which of these would be worse for Leafless (a government staffed with a real minority, even within its own locale; or staffed with those less likely to advance bilingualism yet pay into socialism and the advancement of the QC). To be honnest, I don't even see why this is an issue. I mean, in terms of Québec vs. the RoC in federal offices, it's rather the QC vs. ON (federal employees working in the NRC pretty much have to claim residency in one of the two provinces), meaning if the feds choose to employ Westerners or Maritimers, it's still income tax going to ON or QC, and there's no point decentralizing the federal gov't further than it is already. The other thing is that we're not even refering to politicians, but rather people who have to crunch data for the good of our country. I don't think it matters if my public servants are residents or originating from Québec, Ontariario or elsewhere... as long as they're Canadian and meet all job requirements, I see no real issue with where they're from. Given the constraints, the federal gov't probably couldn't improve the situation by adding more constraints. It's kinda too late to abolish bilingualism; the only way to release labor from language requirements is by privatizing. Again I am still convinced that if it were a real problem, our local unemployment rate would be much higher. As Leafless said, no one is forced to learn a second language, and if someone can do everything in their locale without a second language, then there are less incentives to learn it. However, anyone wanting to work a position that is likely to be bilingual by the time they apply should essentially make sure their language skills are up to par.

I'd imagine... I just find it strange that these managers wouldn't even bother to make it seem like the 2nd language were needed (as in supply work to these newly bilingual gov't employees in their 2nd language once in a while). Are you serious? Man, what's the point? It would make more sense to send people under 45 to do language training, and consider the 45+ to be the legacy who could go without language training... once the legacy staff retires, the feds could have bilingual staff throughout the 613/819... but there's no real point in supplying language training to the nearly-retired... not only are they close to retirement but they learn slower. Yes and no... productivity can be measured by the amount of results for the given amount of labor. Assuming that an Ottawan can be roughly as productive in every hour working, then if they work more hours (likely in more than one job), then they provide a greater contribution to the local economy. I know it's more of a curve (one reaches a point where they become less and less productive per hour worked, but even then the total results over the course of a day increases when hours worked increase). In other words, if monolinguals are taking on second jobs because their first job won't allow their career advancement as long as they're monolingual, then they make a greater contribution to the local economy.

@capricorn: I'm aware, but my point was that the language requirement does not descriminate against Anglophones, because Anglophones can also be qualified and obtain employment, despite language requirements. @Pat Coghlan: I still don't see how a position could be classified bilingual if the 2nd language is never used. Your 10% proposal is indeed humble (which is even more humble than your previous proposal of 1 out of 8 hours; which is 12.5%). The 2nd language would have to be used at least to a certain extent in order to justify classifying the job as bilingual, including dealing with other employees who have the right to report in their prefered domestic language, but I wouldn't limit it to a daily basis (that 10% could be evaluated on weekly or monthly or even quarterly intervals). It would be reasonable at any rate. Standards are usually beneficial, but I have yet to see how such a system could be implemented "idiot-proof" (if a manager wants to classify a position as bilingual, he/she could probable make sure that +10% of the work is done in the 2nd language). At any rate, the standard you propose is reasonable, and I would not complain if it were implemented (but the results would intrigue my curiosity). I honnestly don't see the problem with bilingualism in Ottawa impacting society in terms of numbers. I mean, sure plenty of people are spiteful because of the language issue, yet Ottawa still maintains impressively low unemployment rates (where the federal government is the biggest employer and has most of its labor located). If it were really an issue, Ottawa would have a higher unemployment rate than Montréal and Toronto, where people can easily find work in the private sector. IMHO the actual issue (refering to lately, not what happened centuries ago) is quite exagerated. Actually, it just occured to me that bilingual policies might actually be making Ottawa a more productive city. Because so many people don't get the promotions they would like in their main activity due to refusing to learn a 2nd language, they look for other ways of making a nickel and dime on the side, meaning an increase in hours worked, meaning Ottawa can benefit from a greater local economy. I don't know if monolingual Anglophones in Ottawa average more labor hours than other Canucks, but I'd be curious to see if such an effect has actually occured.

@capricorn: Are they really of grade A merit if they can't read the job desription and only later on find out that they're missing the language skills? I beg to differ. Classifying a job as bilingual does not stop Anglophones from applying. If they have the language skills, they can benefit from bilingual positions.

However, an extra $800 per year in one's bank account isn't bad. I'm surprised it hasn't been increased. At $800 per year, all the money one could have spent on classes in night school would be paid off in less than two years at any rate (and probably less than a year). What do you mean by a level playing field though?

@Rue: OMG, I really don't understand how you could possibly misunderstand what I wrote. I thought I made it clear. Do you want an algorithm? I gave you the Venn Diagramme, apparently that wasn't enough. Here's an algorithm: Let X be a given person. Let A be people of the opposite sex from X, B people of the same sex as X, C children (of both sexes) and D adults (of both sexes). X = [Heterosexual;Teleiophile] IF X is sexually attracted to B approximately as much as X is sexually attacted to A OR IF X willingly engages in intercourse with A AND B, THEN X = [bisexual;] IF X is dominantly sexually attracted to B OR IF X willingly engages in intercourse with B, THEN X = [Homosexual;] IF X is dominantly sexually attracted to C OR willingly engages in intercourse with C, THEN X = [;Pedophile] Possible outcomes: X = [Heterosexual;Teleiophile] X = [bisexual; Teleiophile] X = [Homosexual; Teleiophile] X = [Heterosexual;Pedophile] X = [bisexual; Pedophile] X = [Homosexual; Pedophile] Denying any of these possible combinations is a sign of ignorance. You'd have to be absent-minded to think that those statements you quote state that homosexuality and pedophilia are the same. No d'uh. I never suggested that they were the same, I am simply arguing that Homosexual and Pedophile are neither synonyms, nor antonyms. Since when? I don't wish to slur anyone. Can we just agree that most homosexuals are not pedophiles and get on with this? Does it have to be the same psychological process?? Since when? The psychological process of pedophiles who have sex with the same sex probably have a different psychological process as those who have sex with children of the opposite sex. Please quote where I stated they could both be called the same thing. You have a point here... it never was the point. You were stating earlier about the erroneous myth that homosexuals are accused of being pedophiles. I never heard of this myth. I simply wanted to mention that there is a higher rate of pedophiles amongst adults willing to engage in same sex relations (regardless of age) than those who aren't willing to engage in same sex relations (regardless of age). I am aware that most people willing to engage in same sex relations (regardless of age) are not willing to engage in sexual relations with children, it's just a point I made about proportion. I ignore no components. There are various components that distinguish many teleiophile heterosexuals' behaviors (not all teleiophile heterosexuals share the same fantasies, for instance), however it doesn't motivate me to distinguish teleiophile heterosexuals for the purpose of this thread, just because they don't all share the same psychological development and fantasies. Likewise, I have no interest in distinguishing the behavioral components of the GBLT and of pedophiles for the purpose of this thread. I am no shrink, it's up to the shrink to provide the help an individual needs. I'll admit that the psychological patterns will be different, but that doesn't make someone who has sex with a child of the same sex any less of a homosexual. Remember, homosexuality is not limited by age. A shrink will probably need a different approach to help homosexual pedophiles than to help homosexual teleiophiles, but that's irrelevant. Appology accepted. However, I have nothing to hide. I never said that they are the same. I say homosexuality are neither the same, nor opposites. One can be one of the two, the other of the two, both or neither. I'm aware that most gays are not pedophiles, and most pedophiles are not gay. I was simply stating the difference in proportion. I'll be honnest with you. I agree with the majority of the world's sizeable religious institutions (not only my own) that homosexual relations and pedophile relations are both immoral and sinful. You don't have to agree, but unless you belong to a religious institution, sins should be irrelevant to you. No word game intented, I'm trying really hard to make this understandable for you. My beliefs and how I live up to them is my business. This is a personal attack and irrelevant to the topic. I don't spend my time thinking about what others are up to in the bedroom... I have much better things to do to keep busy. I only evaluate myself according to my beliefs. I may pray for others, but judging others and comparing one's self to others is completely pointless. In fact, I have a very independant mind. I question my beliefs often and I've read a lot on other beliefs. If I find beliefs more truthful than mine, I adapt my beliefs accordingly. Unless you pertain to a religious institution, "sinful" shouldn't phase you. I never used any pretext to say homosexuals are pedophiles. I simply used secular definitions to prove that they are neither opposites nor the same, meaning one can be gay, pedophile, neither, or both. I will however state that homosexuals are gay. (feel free to quote that one) What's that supposed to mean? My s/n is German for "Captain Redbeard". You're welcome to think otherwise, but please at least quote my s/n with the diaeresis (umlaut).

@Guyser: To my knowledge, no word has yet been conceived to define those who are both homosexual and pedophile. Until then, those who have sex with children of the same sex as themselves are both homosexual and pedophile. By the way, what would you consider someone who is equally attacted to children as to adults of the same sex? Are they not both homosexual and pedophile? According to those sexperts, they're labelled according to their dominant preference... what if they like adults of the same sex and children equally? Don't you think it just might be possible for someone to be both gay and pedophile? Never claimed it as true. Sex (as in gender) is not a component of pedophilia. Someone who has sex with children, regardless of the child's sex, is a pedophile. Being a pedophile does not stop someone from being either heterosexual, homosexual nor bisexual. Why don't you do the same with a sex-pert. See how well someone who spent many class hours learning about birth control can help you with your vital organs. Heterosexuality was never forced on anyone. Feel free to choose otherwise; I'd much rather stick to an orientation open to (the true definition of) marriage and to natural procreation. I'd like to believe that too. I'm going to ask you to back that statement with a citation. My reason for disagreeing is the fact that gays so often play the victim. If a gay gets attacked and brings the offensor to court, they'll probably state they were a victim of homophobia, whereas the offenor was probably unaware that the victim was gay. It just ads to the sentence (whereas it wouldn't be the same if a victim is a visible minority, because then the offensor would be probably aware of the victim's skin color and visible minorities are not nearly as quick to play the victim). If these victim-playing gays were to grow some balls and not blame everything on homophobia, then I'd be more likely to agree with your statement. Also, if you look at scholorships given away to students, many are for minorities only... it makes sense to encourage Natives and Blacks to achieve academically because they average the lowest education, yet so many scholarships are given to gays exclusively, who average the highest education. They also average the highest income (well, highest disposable income at any rate) yet the CRTC includes gays as minorities towards job quotas for publicly licenced media. They want all the rights they can get, and they've most certainly gained privileges beyond straight people. I'd be in favor of proportional rights, meaning gays would pay more taxes because they are more likely to have a higher disposable income, just like women are often paid less because of the liability (they can become pregnant and men can't). Unfortunately this is not likely to happen any time soon, because of gay activists who make sure gays have privileges exceeding those of the general population. Sounds like an ad. Is anyone paying you to post on this forum?

@Rue: This is disappointing. You're relating my arguments to irrelevance. I never said anyone claimed that "homosexual" and "pedophile" were synonymous. I'm just saying that there is no reason to believe that a pedophile cannot also be a homosexual and that a homosexual cannot be a pedophile, nothing in their definition states that they cannot be both. They are not antonyms, are they? Are "apple" and "poison" antonyms? No, and there's no reason for a given thing to not be both an apple and poison. For the same reason there's nothing stopping someone from being both a homosexual and a pedophile. I never claimed linguists (nor anyone else) claim homosexuals have sex with children. Linguists write dictionaries. If you insist on quotes, I'll quote the dictionary: Homosexual: [noun] "Someone who practices homosexuality; having a sexual attraction to persons of the same sex". Antonyms: Bisexual; Heterosexual; straight Pedophile: [noun] "An adult who is sexually attracted to children" - WordWeb. There is no reason to believe that one cannot be the other, nor any reason to believe that one must be the other. See the Venn Driagramme. Un bilingue ? Ça alors ! Heureusement je ne suis pas bilingue, mais polyglotte; je parle aussi couramment l'espagnol et je me débrouille très bien en allemand. Je m'entend bien avec les bilingues... une langue n'est qu'un code permettant la communication, ayant aucun lien à la bisexualité. MDR, tes bêtises me font rire par contre. Better late than never, however your response did not advance your point.

@jbg: I stand corrected. I meant to include caeteris paribus. If you hire a Bilingual or a Monolingual Canadian, caeteris paribus (provided both Canadians be equally qualified, etc. and the wages are the same), then the salary cost is the same. Yes and no. Politicians want to create a future for their country according to their platform, provided it dosen't cost them a significant proportion of votes. @capricorn: You do have an objective point of view. However, if we compare a system with bilingualism never implemented with the one we have now (bilingualism half-implemented), it's difficult to figure how much "more" money we're spending/wasting as opposed to never having implemented bilingualism. Gov't will always find some reason to waste money. That bonus for Bilingual employees makes sense. It's a good inviting incentive for people to acquire a second language without it being forced down their throat. This is huge in the private sector (outside IT). Regarding Québec, I'll second that I have no interest in having anything to do with that province. The fact is, Francophone Canadians are more likely to be socialist (fortunately not all of them are) just like black people are more likely to be communitarian (socially right, economically left). If Francophone Canadians were more conservative, they would likely still increase the use of their language in parliament, only Leafless would have one reason less to not like Québec (that is, if they were conservative). @Leafless: Nothing wrong with that. Canada has two official languages, they might as well use both. Oh I'd be for first language testing! Would be such a great idea. It may decrease the number of incompetent "supposively" bilingual French-dominant Canadians in federal offices. It won't, however, decrease the number of Francophones who truly are bilingual in federal offices though. Many Anglophones do not speak nor write in English correctly. Keep in mind that you're living in Ottawa, one of Canada's most educated cities. 2 universities and 2 community colleges (another university and a few CEGEPs on the other side), plus I heard 90% of Ottawans enroll in post-sec. within 3 years of completing high school (I could be wrong, this is simply what's been told to me and I've had no reason to disagree... the actual numbers may vary, nevertheless Ottawa is a very educated Canadian city compared to others). The T. and Montréal may have more universities, but they have 4 to 6 times Ottawa's population. Granted there are some less literate Ottawans, but if you step out of Ottawa, the rate of good spellers decreases. Many Francophones in Ottawa who are quite evidently "French-dominant" may not have the good fortune of being native Ottawans (they likely come from somewhere in the 819, not the 514 nor the 418). If you go to reasonably sized cities in Québec (Montréal and Québec City), you'd be much more likely to meet Francophones who can speak and write better in French than many Anglophones in the RoC could in English.

If you pay a bilingual or a monolingual Canadian to do the same job, it costs you the same in salary. I don't know how even the best accountants could figure this out, especially considering we don't know how much "less" money would be spent had the feds not opted for bilingualism (as I said, salaries are inevitable and gov't depts have quotas so they have to blow a certain amount of cash to preserve the same cash inflow). There are Francophone managers because the gov't hired them in the first place. We could essentially replicate America's "affirmative action" and have every government decision approved by an Anglophone, a Francophone, a native speaker of another language, etc. where at least one of these is a woman (just like in the American USofA where many decisions must be approved by a Caucasian, a Black and an Asian where at least one is a woman). We could do that, but that would increase costs. At least then a justification would be required for classifying these jobs as bilingual. The problem with this is language is less obvious than skin color... a bilingual person could easily claim to have a given language as a first/second if that gets them a good job. Assuming that all Canadians do their public education in their first language is also a flawed logic, so this possible solution would be tricky.

@Pat Coghlan: Perhaps, but I think there's a lack of outsourced and/or privatized labor. The private sector always does it better. How do they classify jobs as bilingual if there's no possible justification? If you establish a prefered language with another person, no matter how many languages you may have in common, it's unlikely that this language preference would change and conversing in another shared language would be awkward, so it makes sense that you resume speaking in English with the Francophone coworkers you knew prior to the language training. @Leafless: Are you suggesting something? If we plug this into a Venn diagramme, I'd say out of the 17% of bilingual Canadians, there are the almost two percent of Canadians born lucky (raised with both languages equally), then the rest is a split between Francophones and Anglophones where most are Anglo-Québecers and Francophones from the RoC. Québec is just as bilingual as the RoC. Canada doesn't need a de facto language since it has official languages. I suggest you look up the American states which do not have an official language in Wikipedia. Language in those states is typically de facto (supporting my claim that a de facto language can be measured not only nation-wide, but also regionally). As for the first reference, it lacks relevance because I specifically stated North Africa, in other words the Islamic nations where the French did not implement their religion, only their language. In most other French-speaking African countries, the French have succesfully implemented their religion aswell. Some Africans assimilated into French culture in order to pertain to the higher class society. Most wouldn't, even if it were advantageous to do so (notice most French speaking Africans do not celebrate French culture, but rather their own, and few went out of their way to marry a French woman, otherwise there'd be a much larger group of Euro-Africans/Afro-Europeans). There were some Englishmen who did the same when England was occupied by France, nothing new here. Regarding your second source, do you have a subscription to access the full text? Rwanda's an interesting country. First colonized by the Germans, then handed to Belgium after WWI. English is however quite the minority language in Rwanda, so the Franco-Europeans still had the largest success at language implementation in Rwanda. Yes, money that would have been spent anyways. Seriously though, money spent on salary is inevitable, and gov't departments have spending quotas, so throwing cash at bilingualism would have been spoiled anyway. As I said earlier, most bilingual Francophones are from the RoC, and Québec as a whole is roughly as bilingual as the RoC. All Canadians are equally benefiting from what the loyalists fought for; Québec, as well as most provinces in the RoC leech off Ontario and Alberta; and Québec has the most distinct Canadian culture per province. I not only suggest it, I state it. What are you going to do about it?

The USofA would probably also become Québec's largest trade partner. If Québec seperates, they'll probably do like Mexico and sign as many free trade agreements as possible.

@jbg: Do you want to be the first to promote such an idea? With no one to back these languages, they won't be used. @Pat Coghlan: Do you have any resources on hand to back this statement? I'd be curious to read some. I found this link: http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/careers/eng/pubserv-e.htm but their link to "A Day in the Life of the Public Service of Canada" is broken (and may relfect gov't bias). Maybe you can find something objective to back your statement. A justification is nevertheless required. If the 2nd language is never needed, then there's no way one could justify classifying the position as bilingual. @Leafless: Québec is linguistically significant; the QC is the 2nd most populated province. English was never de facto in Québec, not even while controled by the English. Then why were the French so successful at establishing their language as the official working and academic language (and not their religion) in the French colonies of North Africa? The North Africans may still prefer to speak Arabic, but they most certainly speak French (and do not share any culture nor religion with France). There's a greater difference between Catholicism and Islam than between Catholicism and the Church of England, yet the English were still unsuccessful at merely implementing their language in Québec. Nowadays, changing a region's majority language is much more difficult than in previous times (because colonization does not happen in the same way as it did a couple centuries ago). Once Québec joined Canada, the incentives to become a predominantly English speaking region were lessened, because when official languages were established, their regionally dominant language was included. Bilingualism may be required to work in the larger stores in Gatineau, but like in Ottawa, plenty of people 'claim' to be bilingual just to get the job yet are not capable of working in both languages (this claim normally doesn't stop them from getting hired because the interview is done in the region's dominant language as well as most of the labor upon employment). There may be plenty of folks who claim to be bilingual in those stores just to get the job, but they won't speak to you in English because they can't. Same thing goes for plenty of places in Ottawa where one could assume that the staff would be bilingual, yet they can hardly speak French. Most truly bilingual people in Gatineau work in Ottawa. The ones who claim to be bilingual work on their side of the fence. These large stores can easily find a translator to translate their ads for Ottawa, but that doesn't mean the staff speak English. This leads me to gather that you believe the follwoing: If a Francophone learns English with the hopes of getting a good job that might require the use of English, he's doing the right thing. If an Anglophone learns French with the hopes of getting a good job that might require the use of French, he's selling his soul to the devil. This is nonsense. I bet there are Francophones who believe the same (yet inverse Francophone with Anglophone and English with French). An elite group of Canucks who pretty much own the politicians. I'll assume most of them are Ontarian or Albertan, where the highest proportions of wealthy Canucks live (with the exception of other Canadian WASPs who choose to live abroad). They probably don't care whether Anglophones or Francophones get federal work, as long as the political parties pay them premiums for their investments. The referenda are kinda old. Most seperatists have toned down and would settle for sovereignty-association (like in South-Tyrol, Italy). Even the seperatists would support federal policies regarding an increased use of their language. All know the numbers already. You don't consider 24% of Canadians a large proportion?! That's a much higher proportion than that of Spanish speakers in the USofA. The federal gov't does not pertain to any region, so it uses the two official languages, one being equally official to the other. The private sector reflects the natural demand for language. What technology would you expect them to use? Everyone either uses American, Japanese or German technology or model their own based on American, Japanese or German technology. Is it really a failed issue? Wouldn't there be a higher proportion of bilingual Canadians now than in Canada's entire history? If so, wouldn't that reflect a certain success coming from bilingual policies? This bilingual issue is bilateral; you'd probably find a much weaker proportion of bilingual people in Québec aswell in the past. By the way, on the topic of assimilation, you've mentioned that the definition of assimilation admits the possibility of voluntary assimilation, yet you have not yet provided a historical example of a people choosing to adopt another culture/language while renouncing their own. The example of the Americanisation of English Canadians doesn't really work because just like English Canadians join the American mass media band wagon, so does most of the world, and English Canadian culture is still relatively just as similar and different compared to American culture as a century ago (I write Americanisation with an S for the purpose of irony).

That's the problem. It shouldn't be an issue for anglophones in Ontario (or francophones in Quebec) unless providing service to the public or employees (e.g. HR or compensation). Taxpayers receive zero benefit from trying to get anglophones to talk French to their francophone collegues in the performance of their jobs in, say Ottawa. We are spending billions on this useless training. When people finish language school (possibly after 2+ years), 80% of them go back to their jobs and speak English. Bilignual requirement for services, fine. Bilingual requirement for jobs that just end up speaking the language of the majority, assinine (unless you're a francophone, so blocking anglophones from thousands of positions in ROC makes perfect sense to you). Wouldn't it be a majority of government employees who have to deal with either the public or other employees? I'd imagine that would include a huge portion of gov't employees. If the position isn't labeled bilingual, language is not an issue. If the position is labeled bilingual, the employer would have to justify doing so one way or another. Most gov't work can be outsourced, and it should because then the private sector would be much more efficient. Plus the issue of requiring bilingualism just to serve employees in their prefered domestic language to satisfy the OLA would no longer be an issue. Yeah, and when officials from, say Italy, get together with officials from, say Germany, they write up the contracts in English. You say requiring bilingualism isn't discriminatory. What do you call it then, when a position in Ottawa is classified bilingual, yet the employee speaks English virtually 100% of the time? Please explain why we should spend billions of dollars on language training for people to go back to their jobs and speak only English? Is Sheila Fraser listening??? There are enough people in a given European country who speak the language(s) of other European countries that this wouldn't be an issue. English is used between non-English speaking European countries for academics (public research) and private sector (for "international" contracts), yet the gov'ts still communicate in one of the two countries' language. By officials I am assuming you mean gov't representatives. A justification would have to exist in order to categorize a position as bilingual. Besides, the language training is available; nothing is holding Anglophones back from becoming bilingual and benefiting from the opportunities that come with it. Last I heard the feds were cutting back on expensive language training and simply requiring bilingualism instead to save money. IMHO, If I had to choose between people of one group storming gov't offices or providing training for those of the other group at the expense of tax payers, I'd rather see less wasted tax money and bite the fact that fewer Anglophones will grab gov't work. Federal gov't emplyees consist of a small portion of Canada's population (it may have an impact on Ottawa's job market, yet Ottawa still somehow has an impressively low unemployment rate) but everyone has to pay taxes, so expecting applicants to be bilingual right off the bat costs so few yet benefits so many. Requiring bilingualism in the job description may be less discriminating than spoiling tax money on laguage training if in the end the acquired language is not needed.

What do you want me to understand? That linguists should adjust certain definitions because Sex-perts think these definitions should be less inclusive? Sorry, I forgot to be more inclusive. The God fearing, the holy rollers, the fundamentalists (of most beliefs including soviet communists), the Albertans, pro-family advocates and the socially conservative would not pay into such a government who shoves such liberal beliefs down their throat. Can you argue otherwise? The purpose of fora is to express one's own views, and if you disagree, please post why along with your perception. I have no intention in being unbiased in my posts on this thread, but quoting sources and claiming them to be facts should be from unbiased, or at very least objective sources/studies.