Kapitän Rotbart

I'll admit I didn't read all the posts (too many to read), but I wanted to take advantage of this opportunity to discuss this topic on this active thread. Homosexuality was once diagnosed as a dysfunction. I wouldn't go to the extent of calling it a dysfunction, but it is a disorder. Intercourse is designed for procreation, and homosexual intercourse cut off that possibility. Is homosexuality an anomaly? It's not quite normal. The 10%er is a big lie, check this out: http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/two.php 1-2% is insignificant in terms of statistics where 5% is most often used as a level of significance (1% is rarely used as Level of Significance, and probably never used for measuring human population... normally for tests on drugs/medicine... etc.). Because the proportion of gays is insignificant, I am not wrong for assuming that one is straight. I hate it when gays say that we shouldn't assume that people are straight. It makes sense that being sensitive to people of a fringe group not be a priority for me. If I find out that one is gay, that's different, but unless I know that one is gay, I will assume that they're straight. There are greater incentives for me to be sensitive to people of different religions/beliefs than sexual orientation, because at least the proportion of those practicing religions other than Christianity in Canada is significant. As for gay marriage, I'm against the gov't managing marriage licences as a whole. I think the gov't should recognize "single" and "civil union". There should be no need for a licence, but rather people should have the freedom to register under either status and be taxed accordingly and treated accordingly for the purpose of customs and immigration. Religious institutions should manage their own marriage licences and determine which ones they recognize from other institutions. For instance, if a muslim couple is married under Islam, then joins a Christian church, it is up to the Christian church on wheather or not their Muslim marriage certificate is recognized and it's also up to them how the marriage within that church be validated. That way, if the Anglican church chooses to marry gays, then the Catholic church could choose to not recognize Anglican marriages if they choose. The only argument thrown against my utopic proposition is that "people get married by the state just for the sake of getting married". I find it a poor argument, because atheists (or people of any Faith) could just consider themselves married if they want to, have a celebration if they want to, then register as a civil union with the gov't if they want to. Would be the ideal in my opinion, because then gay marriage would not be an issue. The gov't would no longer licence marriage, therefore it would be the gays vs. each institution, and not vs. the gov't. That way it's up to the individual on whether they belong to a certain Faith or not, and it's their choice whether they want to be part of a Faith that approves of gay marriage or not. As for other rights, adoption is still an issue. There are many people I'd prefer to stop from adopting. I'd want to stop those who consume tobacco, who excessively consume alcohol, who consume any street side pharmaceuticals from adopting because of their unhealthy life-style and poor example towards the adopted child. I'd stop gays of adopting on the basis that they are in a relation that could never result in natural procreation and I'd give preference to couples identified as civil unions (married or not, beause as mentioned earlier I don't want the gov't putting its nose where it doesn't belong) over single people as prospective adoptive parents. Not catering to the gays is nothing like Nazi Germany who would have them killed. That goes against one's civil rights.

There are already many incentives to learn a third language. Not likely to be a necessity in Canada though, as long as we keep the languages act (unless we get an incredible rate of tourism from a nation sharing no language with Canada). Québec's law 101 does not ban signs in English, they just insist that they be in French first and anything in largest print would have to be in French. Law 101 was a case of action-reaction. When the English colonized the QC, instead of assimilating the Québecers by making all the schools English language schools, they tried populating QC with European Anglophones (Englishmen, Scots and Irish). This was ridiculous colonization, so the Québecers made sure no future assimilation attempts would work thanks to their law. The tragic result is spite. The prairies were once much more French-speaking than they are now. Unlike Québec, the prairies have practically forced assimilation, making it very difficult, if not impossible to obtain education in the French language. Yeah, Lots Of Laughs indeed. English would have been De Facto regardless since the English colonized Canada, but French was still De Facto in QC (and had the provinces not made any language policies of their own prior to the language act, French would also be de facto in certain parts of the prairies and Ontario. Québecers have no interest in taking over the country, they are only interested in their own province based on your earlier arguments. Managers from France? Shucks, I hope they had permission to work in Canada! Well shucks, if you weren't forced to leave, then bilingual policies haven't affected you. I still don't get what you mean by English bilingual and French bilingual... if a position requires bilingualism in Soviet Canuckistan, it requires English and French. What's a French bilingual position?!?! As I said, if a position requires bilingualism, of course it will require French. People speaking French around you stresses you out? That's a symptom of xenophobia!

Your picking on the wrong person. Check the content of this thread and you will see it is Kapitan Rotbart who is fixated and obsessed with bilingualism and federal public service jobs. I consider myself reasonably prejudiced and critical relating to the federal governments discriminatory 'official bilingual policy', along with its undemocratic promotion of its version of bilingualism outside of federal jurisdiction into Canadian provinces and cities but ignoring Quebec, concerning enforcing its federal bilingual ideologies in that province. My objections to bilingualism is no rant. I am fighting for my lost constitutional individual rights as a Canadian citizen. Our 'Parliamentary Democracy' form of government is lost in this country with the implementation of 'Charter Rights and freedoms' that protects previous controversial federal government policies. Don't worry Charles, I was a previous a federal public service employee (years ago) who lost employment with the federal government, owing fully to the incredible playful antics of 'official bilingualism' (but with deadly consequences) in the federal government. The last thing I ever desire in my lifetime again, is federal government employment. Being ruined once, was enough for me, which has burdened me ever since with ever lasting hardships. This explains a lot. You're clearly motivated by spite to advocate against bilingual policies. Makes sense. Without the Official Languages Act, Canadians have no language rights. Your rights as a Canadian citizen were not denied because the position required bilingualism, a skill you didn't have. Your arguments about Québec are most likely also driven by spite. Was the guy who took your job working as a public servant a Québecer? Québec does not have the same level of local support for bilingualism as Ontario does, plus Ontario and Ottawa have been governed by Leberals / Liberal supporters for the last while, reason being for the interest in pushing bilingual policies. NO political party in Québec to my knowledge is interested in bilingualism, so the only thing you could do to change that is by getting involved in Québec's provincial politics.

Don't wanna learn French? Your loss. Many Francophones won't learn your language for the same reason. Natural bilingualism cannot function as long as people like you live in Canada. Québec is still a good reason to learn French. Seven million people in a province larger than twice the size of France should be a big enough incentive to learn their language (especially considering you're living next to them). As long as the West is "English-Only", there's no reason for Québec to make room for bilingualism in their province. Québec caters more to French-speaking Africans than Anglophone bilingual Canadians?! Explain. Canada caters more to the Africans, Hispanics, Asians, Arabs, etc. than to Caucasian Canadians due to minority quotas unilaterally imposed on publicly liscenced media companies. I do not know of any incentives Québec uses to cater strictly to minorities. What I do know, is that Québec has "relations" with certain other countries, meaning a citizen of Italy, France, Cameroon and certain other countries pay the same rates in Québec as Québec residents do for public services (for instance education and transportation) whereas non-Québecer Canadians pay easily the double in tuition if they wish to study in Québec. This however also applies to certain European nationalities, so it's not really an incentive to cater just to black people. Caeteris paribus, bilingual candidates get the job regardless of mother tongue. Anglophone Quebecers are more likely to be bilingual than other Québecers, meaning they still have an advantage over Negro-Québecers. Culture is not a real barrier for Anglophone bilignual Canadians in Québec, because it's still Western culture. There's probably a greater gap between Anglophone Canadian culture and the culture found in other English-speaking countries in other continents than between the cultures of the Canadians of the two domestic languages. It's not all about the Act. The act the gov't created is a large incentive to require bilingualism, however gov't jobs "should require bilingualism anyway", that way the gov't can relocate its employees and have them work on any project/contract without language being an issue. Without the act, it would be trickier to harmonize. The baby-boom retirement issue will impact our society, but likely not nearly as hard as anticipated. The gov't can easily fill those positions with skilled candidates most likely aged between 25 and 55. I'm not too concerned, as Leafless said, without a revolution, bilingual policies aren't likely to go away. Canada's one of the last places on Earth I'd expect to find a revolution, I'd figure things will just stay the same.

Fact? Still seems like fiction to me. I'm aware that nearly half of Québec's residents have been voting in favor of seperation in the referenda, so it's safe to assume that roughly half of Québec's residents are seperatists/nationalists. I don't see how you can assume that the other half demand bilingualism outside of their province. Many people in Québec don't speak English, so it's understandable that they expect people to speak to them in French in their region. This doesn't make them nationalists, they may love Canada more than you do yet never got around to learning their second domestic language, kind of like many Canadians outside to Québec. Care to make more suggestions? I was messing around with you. Your statement "For all you know, maybe I am French" was so absurd that I couldn't resist. I'll agree that anyone seeking employment in Ottawa should be able to work in English, but the federal government does not pertain to any city nor province, so they can set their own language requirements. Ottawa West's main industry is IT, probably the only private industry in Ottawa which will most likely never require bilingualism. The private sector is (for the most part) free to operate in their prefered language, yet Ottawa's private sector's thirst for bilingual candidates illustrates the real demand for bilingualism. Most people wouldn't want gov't positions outsourced because they're paid better in the public sector. Not privatizing/outsourcing most gov't jobs is a waste of tax money, IMHO. Many of these jobs are bilingual because to honor the Act, people can choose to report to those working such bilingual positions in their prefered domestic language, requiring those being reported to by other gov't employees to know both languages. It still seems to me that trends in Québec are independant of bilingualism in Ottawa. The Act may not be perfect, be we might as well honor it now that it's been legislated.

Language training for both domestic languages is provided, most likely even at no cost to recent immigrants. http://www.cic.gc.ca/ENGLISH/pub/annual-re...6/section5.html Canadians can easily find themselves very affordable language training in adult high schools in any region where one may need both langauges for federal employment. Anyone interested in federal work yet not knowing both languages still have plenty of opportunities to work up their language skills. I still figure that anyone thinking of one day working for the government should figure that knowing both domestic languages would be really helpful if seeking work within the government of a country of two languages. Why should fewer jobs be classified bilingual? Private sector doesn't have to require bilingualism, so any job not making use of both languages could most likely be outsourced (including many jobs requiring bilingualism aswell). Actually, the language act only grants the right to gov't employees in relatively bilingual areas to report in one's prefered domestic language. It's not all bad though thanks to its reciprocity... Anglophones can still report in English in predominantly French-speaking, yet with significant Anglophone polulation, areas of Québec (without this Act, it would be a privilege which may not always be granted). Those having taken the language training probably have little interest in using their newly acquired language at work; they've been using their first domestic langauge with all their coworkers prior to training, so there would be no interest in using their second Canadian language. You still generalize the Québec population based on your observations. I would assume you had some reason for stating your observations, but regardless of connotations and sense of belonging, if I use a word correctly according to its definition (such as Québécois, being synonymous to Quebecer), there's no need in pointing it out. For all I know, maybe no one on this forum is actually from Canada... possibilities are endless. I just assumed that because you're against bilingual policies in Ottawa, that you most likely wouldn't be from France. There's no need to end these bilingual policies. They aren't harming anyone, just means that if one wants to apply for certain jobs, they should know both domestic languages.

No, that's why it's easier to require bilingualism as opposed to providing training. Also, most government positions can be outsourced, especially the ones not making use of the minority language at least on average one hour per day, and outsourcing most government work would be even more efficient. Yeah, makes sense because you, an Ontarian, would know better than the Québecers when refering to their sense of belonging. Just because one lives in Québec does not mean they put ther province first and country second (and even if they did, it still wouldn't make them nationalists). I know Québecers who gladly describe themselves as Canadians. You seem to be making huge generalizations about people you seem to know little about. Anglophones have the same rights as Francophones. If a job requires bilingualism, both languages are required regardless of one's background (whether one has to learn the majority, minority or both languages in order to have all the qualifications required for the position). As I said, the right to work is very different from the privilege to work a specific position. No employer will hire you on the basis that you have the right to work. The right to work in Canada is one of the requirements for a position in Canada, as well as the required skills, etc. Bob Chiarelli is no longer mayor, but the polls leading up to the elections reveal interesting information. The other "liberal" candidate Alex Munter (probably more liberal than Chiarelli) led the polls for the longest time until shortly before the elections. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_munici...lection%2C_2006 Language is not the main reason to my knowledge why Chiarelli is no longer in power. He was proposing nonsense-spending concerning the oTrain, which in itself was a good enough reason to vote against him. Aside bilingual policies there is one good thing we can thank the liberals for... smoking bans! Ottawa has become such a better place since the smoking ban in 2001 (other than smoking bans and bilingual policies, we have nothing to thank the liberals for... the City of Ottawa should privatize garbage pick-up, something only the burliest of conservatives in Canadian politics may consider). Seriously though, the language issue is not the reason why Chiarelli lost the last municipal elections, plus O'Brian doesn't seem tempted to reverse these actions, despite the fact that he's not as interested in bilingualism as Bob Chiarelli was.

The problem is that people born in Quebec or in the "Francophone pockets" of other provinces get "English immersion" from Day 1. Their exposure to English as a second language in school is reinforced by continual real-life exposure to English as the dominant language on the continent. The reverse is not true, and thus BC'ers, etc. are at a real disadvantage in obtaining civil service jobs.In addition, I suspect there is some policy designed, sub silentio, to favor Francophones. What do you think? Immersion does help, but is not necessary in order to learn a language. Considering the opportunities available for Westerners to immerse in the French language in Québec, any Westerner can achieve fluency in the French language, and should if considering ever working for the federal gov't (in this case I'm not arguing this because I think these jobs should require bilingualism but rather because many of these jobs actually do require both languages and it would be wise for anyone hoping to tap into this employment to learn their 2nd Canadian language). For the second point I can only speak based on experience. I have been led to believing that virtually everyone holding a blingual position would have French as a first language, leading me to first speak in French with people working such positions in order to ease communication. I was astonished that many of these people working bilingual positions in Ottawa are actually Anglophones. One could tell that French was not their first language when spoken to in French and that they were fastest in French with terms related to their work, but I applause them for putting enough effort into their language skills in order to whip up a working ability in their second domestic language. I must say that one should not assume that a given person working a bilingual position speaks French as a first language. It would be convenient for me if I could assume most (if not all) working bilingual positions were of a given first language, that way I would naturally choose that language when speaking with those serving me, but there seems to be a good diversity of bilingual people of both languages working bilingual positions in Ottawa. I really couldn't speak about other cities, though. As for policies, they may be written by people wanting to favor Francophones (could be) yet permitted by our democratic system. Also even if those who wrote our language policies had the intentions of favoring Francophones, they still came no where near to giving special treatment to them like the case of the Aboriginals. Quebecers may be getting a little extra money from equalization, but a province with a population of 7 million and a lower economy than Ontario would receive the same amount of funding regardless of language, and non-Francophone Quebecers are receiving the same amount per capita from equalization as their Francophone counterparts. Francophones are still paying taxes and paying for services in the English language which they are not using, so they still don't get a significant advantage over other Canadians like the natives do.

Some people are born luckier than others. An upbringing does not guarantee non-language skills, nor does it guarantee that one's skills in those languages are good enough to work managerial positions (sure basic language skills may be needed to serve someone a cold beer, but one still has to learn their first language(s) in order to write letters, etc.). Being born in Alberta or BC does not stop you from being bilingual. Makes sense, no one wants to hire someone knowing they'll lose the employee to training. On the other hand, a huge amount of federal jobs could easily be outsourced, making language no longer an issue. If these employers anticipate losing their monolingual employees to language training, then both languages are most likely needed for the job. Oh I understand, that you arguing a definition with sense of belonging is silly. You assume that Francophone residents of Québec are naturally nationalists, which I understand by that you mean seperatist. This goes back to your nonsense deduction I pointed out earlier that 100% of Francophones = 100% of residents of Québec = 100% Seperatists. Québecers may have a different sense of belonging than other Canadians by putting their province first, but that does not mean they like Canada any less. Right, because despite the fact that you're from Ontariario, you somehow speak on behalf of Québec residents to determine their sense of belonging. The Quebecers can call themselves what they want. According to the English language, Québécois can be synonymous to Quebecer, so I was not wrong in using that word. I'll use an example to explain. A friend of mine from Texas is a Chicano (meaning "A person of Mexican descent" according to WordWeb, often defined as an American born to Mexican parents). He does not consider himself Chicano (but rather Mexican American, Latino, etc.) because he does not feel part of the cultural movement using that word as a sense of belonging but does not argue when someone refers to him as a Chicano because he fits the definition. Even if many Quebecers don't consider themselves Québécois, they still are by definition. Somehow because you think this is an issue, I'll use the synonym 'Quebecer' to please you, an 'Ontarian' because it might upset the 'Quebecers' who do not consider themselves 'Québécois', despite the fact that they are 'Québécois' by definition. Tell that to the businesses who will gladly provide service in French and do commerce in French because in increases their revenues. Money is everyone's favorite language. Unilaterally imposed by democratically elected politicians... right. It was so unilateral, that it was introduced by those elected by a majoirty of voters! They wouldn't have done it if it were to flush their popularity prior to the following election, so apparently it's not as unilateral as you claim.

Humble opinion indeed. I'd imagine federal employees could be working on different projects/contracts at different times and may be required to relocate, so depending on the work coming in one could need English, French or both. It would be quite useful for federal employees to be bilingual because then the government could assign more projects to a federal employee over the course of one's career with the feds, so even if a federal employee goes months without using their second language, the need could come up at any time (and the gov't could assign more pressing projects to their most efficient employees, language not being an issue if all are blingual). Plus there's no way of anticipating how many minutes per day will be spent answering phone calls in one's second language, so it would be tricky to figure how many minutes/hours per day would be spent working in one's second language in order to draw a line for when an employer should not make a job position exclusively bilingual. Simple? You make it complicated. Québécois is synonymous to Quebecer. You seem to have mistaken sense of belonging for definition. Regardless of who "considers" themselves Québécois, if Québécois means a native or resident of Québec, then it is synonymous to Quebecer. Because I don't care too much to argue this, I'll use "Quebecers" instead when refering to all residents of Québec. Sure, but Anglophone Quebecers are not contributing to the need for the French language, plus most of them are not seperatists, so even if I were excluding them by refering to the Québécois wouldn't be an issue. Wasn't unilateral; it affected all residents equally. Canada took Armenia's side for the case of the Armenian war and never sought my opinion. Government in all countries make decisions that may favor as few as only politicians and their friends, even in the most democratic countries. Get over it.

I quote your source again: The first thing mentioned in your source is that a Québécois is a native or resident of Québec. I may also specifically refer to something else (meaning that the very first thing mentioned is valid "as is"). Non-seperatists may also call themselves Québécois. Definitions and sense of belonging are very different. Why would Anglophone Quebecers concern you? They're not as likely to advocate bilingualism in Canada as the Francophone Quebecers, so I don't see why they'd be a concern. Your definition admits the use of Québécois to refer to any native or resident of Québec, so I was using this word correctly. Because you insist that Québécois exclusively refers to French Canadian residents of Québec, then I'll use Quebecers to refer to all residents of Québec. It's not an issue for me, but let's have it your way to end this discussion about the definition of Québécois... it's completely irrelevant to the fact that more jobs are requiring both languages in Ottawa.

Nonsense. Dion is 100% Canadian, just as Canadian as anyone else with Canadian citizenship, so all other citizenships are irrelevant. It's bad enough people were upset that Michaëlle Jean had French citizenship when she became our Governor General but I understand because she represents the Queen of England (I only didn't like the fact that she's a seperatist). Dion doesn't represent any Englishman in Canada, so provided he is a Canadian citizen then no other citizenship should be an issue. Language is not a racial issue. Canada decided on two official languages, languages being for the purpose of communication, regardless of which culture and in which languages culture in Canada is celebrated. Canada could choose any languages it wants to provided to political system supports it. Is that a question. I'm not denying anything, but the FLQ is history. The Act itself is not evil. I quote under languages of work: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/O-...anchorbo-ga:l_V You can report your work in your prefered domestic language in certain regions and if people can report to you in their prefered domestic language, to live up to that right, you need both languages for your position. Makes sense. No... really?? What's your point? French is official in two provinces and unofficial yet heavily supported in Ontario (containing roughly two thirds of Canada's population within these areas where French is heavily supported, meaning beyond any federaly imposed minimum). I don't see how you could consider French a foreign language. About the seperatist you knew, makes sense because money is everyone's favorite language, but that makes this seperatist a sell-out for learning enough English and then landing a job with the feds. I don't see how language policies could compromise dress-code control. On the other hand, I'm sure there are sell-out unpatriotic Anglophones who work for the feds. Seperatists are not the only enemy. Arbitrary indeed. You argue that Quebecer is the only appropriate word for all residents of Québec, despite the fact that the definition given for Québécois is a resident of Québec, but may also specifically refer to a French-speaking or French Canadian native or inhabitant of the province. Going by your sources, Québécois could also be used to refer to all residents of Québec, not necessarily strictly the Francophones of that province. I don't really care, seems like it would make you much happier if I refer to all residents of Québec as Quebecers and use Québécois only to refer to the Francophones of that province. Quebecer it is. At the federal boarder Canada can use international policies and can determine whether or not both languages are needed. Only communist governments try to advocate fairness. If someone thinks knowing their second domestic language will increase their opportunities, they should start working on it as early as possible. I was saying to Leafless that he was slipping his way out of my arguments, and I usually respond to other peoples' arguments. Whether all the jobs are staffed by Quebecers, Ontarians, Albertans... I couldn't care less provided they have the skills required for the job. I'd imagine if none of the positions were held by Francophones, you wouldn't be complaining. My point is that requiring bilingualism does not discriminate candidates based on the way they're born (gender, skin color, place of birth, any other trait identifiable at birth before one is able to speak). In other words anyone can shape themselves to fit the job requirements regardless of where and to whom they're born.

As you wish, but the reason I went back on my arguments is because you haven't responded to them (because you can't, you keep trying to escape the arguments where I've got you cornered). As for discriminatory policies, any job requirement is discriminating... I hope blind people are screened out for truck driving (which is discrimination, by the way). Anyone can achieve the skills required for federal work, including language skills, so it's not discriminating people based on their background, but rather on their capacities (which makes sense). Undemocratic federal government initiatives? How many federal gov't initiatives are democratic? Canada never asked me whether or not they should recognize the Armenian war. The Armenian war didn't even concern Canada... why take a stand?! So many things pass in the federal gov't without consulting the general population. Sometimes it's a shame (especially for foreign policies) when the feds do not consult its population. These are things that happen all the time and you might as well get over it. I tried to keep this one short and sweet for you. We don't have to go on about this if you prefer, but that would mean that I win because you fail to respond to my arguments.

You are trolling again as I really can't believe anyone being as naive and ignorant to the factual truth as you. Post your proof when you make a controversial statement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cois The rest of your post is not worth replying to as it is evident no English speaking person would go to the trouble and ridiculous lengths you do to support such an undemocratic initiative as 'official bilingualism' in the federal public service. 'Official bilingualism' in the federal public service is totally 'out of control' by implementing an inferior foreign (separatist supported including 50% of the population of Quebec) language to control the the most sensitive workings of government that all of Canada ultimately depends on. The federal government of Canada is providing Canadians a disservice by leading Canada down a very dangerous path. I quote your source: "But may also" does not mean "exclusively". Regardless, I don't think Anglophone residents of Québec seem to bother you, so it's a non-issue... you're the one trolling on an arbitrary definition. If you like we can agree to use Québécois to refer exclusively to Francophone residents of Québec for the purpose of this thread, but instead you just suggest that I'm a French Nationalist despite the fact that I don't like Québec because of it's socialism and I would never live there. "Not worth replying to"? Bwahahahahaha, you're not able to reply to it. I've got you cornered. You'd have to admit that you either made a racist comment (concerning Stéphane Dion's French citizenship) or that your argument that Canada's language policies being racist is not valid. Also you seem to make this language issue seem like such a big deal. You seem to think that there it's a problem that one group of Canadians is over-represented in federal gov't offices yet you claim to not hate any group of people (so it shouldn't be an issue), you claim that rights are denied yet you failed to justify this argument (because there is no justification, no rights have been denied because jobs are privileges, the right to work does not grant an individual the right to a specific position). You also can't seem to get over the FLQ who were a couple crazy commies and do not represent anyone, just their crazy ideas. Sure Canadians need their gov't, but French is not a foreign language. The only seperatists in the federal gov't are the block parties (Bloc Québécois, Western Block and possibly others, can't remember if Newfoundland has a block party). Seperatists don't have any interest in working for federal gov't departments, it's not where they can do their lobbying. From what I gather, Seperatists have no real interest in learning English and working for the feds, they want the feds to work for them. Besides, if you lose your job to a seperatist, shame is on you. Seems like you're the troll, going on with your nonsense about seperatists, French being a foreign language, language policies running the federal gov't down the funnel, etc. Be a real man and justify your arguments or agree that you're wrong.

As I recall, a Québécois is a resident of Québec, regardless of language or background. The word is part of the English language and completely appropriate. Firstly, I'm not confusing Official Languages with Majority Regional Languages. Secondly, let's agree on a very specific definition of race for the purpose of this thread. Either we agree that language is not a component of race and therefore your above statement is absurd because white Canadians would either hire or not hire other white Canadians based on language, having nothing to do with skin color. Or we can agree that language is a component of race, meaning when you expressed distastefully that it's not appropriate that the leader of the Liberal party of Canada be a French citizen (yet being indifferent about other dual citizenship combinations in the case of Canadian politicians) would be making a racist comment. My point was that Canadians have a right to work in Canada, but they do not have a right to certain positions (jobs are privileges... no one is obliged to hire a given candidate). If a given job requires bilingualism, no candidate is denied their rights if they are denied the position, because the position itself is a privilege, get it? The Canadian gov't will not deny their rights to work at all, in other words Canadians can legally be employed in Canada, but it's up to the candidate to convince the employer to choose them (by having the required skills and being good at interviews). Can you propose anything the political parties can do without risking losing popularity? No party will touch language issues if it costs them votes. The feds do not pertain to any province, so of course they'll unilaterally make French an official language. It's not a major issue, because most federal offices are in Ottawa or Québec, where employers do not have too much trouble finding qualified bilingual candidates, so it's not like moving federal offices in Alberta where it would be trickier to find qualified bilingual candiates (or any bilingual candidates). Linguistic war? I still don't see any violence resulting in supporting two languages (the FLQ is history, and besides, a couple crazy commies don't reflect the general regional population of Québec). Are you unable to figure what I've been saying all this time about Ottawa? I know that it makes sense Ottawa's biggest employer would be the feds because it is the capital city. That's why it's not 'just like any other Canadian city'. I never liked Jean Chrétien. His decentralization program was a waste of money. Still doesn't change the fact that the feds are governing a country of two languages and should represent this land by being skilled in both languages. The only way the feds could force everyone to speak French is if education becomes a federal issue and the feds would make all schools French language schools. Not going to happen any time soon. Language is not a compulsory issue. Not all Canadians have to be bilingual. A Canadian can still find tonnes of work knowing only one of the two languages. The government should not be expected to supply jobs to monolingual Canadians in a country of two languages. If Ottawa's biggest employer is the federal gov't, then it makes sense that most jobs in Ottawa require bilingualism.

Last time I looked, I found 'Québécois' in my American English dictionary at home (and it can also be found writen that way in WordWeb). It looks better than 'Quebecer', nothing to do with nationalism (I don't like Québec... it's not bad a place for a summer cottage but I'd never live there). A job is a privilege. As I recall, it must be earned through a hiring process. No one is obliged to hire any given candidate. Nationals have a right to work, but any given paid position is a privilege. Monolinguals don't have a right to federal positions, therefore no rights are denied. This is clearly not the case for the federal gov't because the feds to not pertain to any province. For municipal gov't, I wish Ottawa would become a City-State and not pertain to any province either, but that would mean Gatineau would be part of this NRC city-state and without Gatineau, Québec's percentage of pro-seperation residents may rise high enough to cause seperation if another referendum comes along. Because Ottawa won't become a city-state, it might as well have certain distinction being the capital of a country of two languages. It's not quite just like any city. When are they going to realize that international and national languages are independant from eachother? Ottawa is quite different from other Canadian cities. The biggest employer in town is the federal gov't, and is paying salary to Ottawans using tax money collected from all Canadians. Canada could have its federal offices located anywhere, but it makes sense that they staff their offices with bilingual employees. Montréal is in Québec so that would make a controversial location for federal gov't offices and Cornwall is too small. The Québécois don't care about other provinces, regardless of other Canadians' first language. I also don't care much about their province... what they do within their borders doesn't phase me. Makes sense that Francophones in Gatineau learn enough English to work in Ottawa. Isn't that what you want... that Francophones learn enough English to speak to you in your language? I agree, those prioritizing languages could learn three to God knows how many languages. It's still important to know domestic languages. If Canada did not have any common language with the USA, I'd recommend learning our neighbors' language. Because that's not an issue, Canadians can focus on their second Canadian language. In this case, you're more likely to close a deal if you speak your client's language. Not sure what this has to do with respect, but money is everyone's favorite language. Granted, but it's not a tower of Babel when both languages used are taught to all Canadians. Although the leading world economies are monolingual, it's not because of language but rather other factors like population and industry sectors. Public servants, like anyone else, do not have a right to their positions. It's a privilege, which can be granted or taken away like any other. Those representing a country of two languages should know both languages, and a lot of the federal gov't work should be outsourced anyway. Same goes for Ottawa's municiple gov't. I'll second that. The actual rate of bilingual Canadians is pretty low regardless of first language. One cannot assume that Francophones in Québec and Neu-Braunschweig speak English and one cannot assume that Anglophones outside Québec speak French, which is a good enough reason for having two languages in Parliament.

Let's get real for a moment. Kwebek couldn't shop at Wal-Mart without government assistance. Try going twelve months without equalization, and then feel free to talk about "without government assistance". Kwebek has been a kept province since the beginning of time, and the way it is treated by the fed's it always will be. Kick them the hell out of Canada, and see whether they want to maintain their "holier than thou" attitude. Just for the record, when someone is anti-Kwebek, they are usually anti-billingual and vice versa. Canadians in general have had enough of this spoiled brat syndrome and more than enough of this shove-it-down-your-throat dual language BS. This country is not billingual, only one province is. And barely at that. There is absolutely no need for a second (dead) language in this country. The argument that "we need to be billingual because the federal language policies say so" goes hand in hand with "we need federal language policies because we're billingual". It's a circular argument that has no reasoning behind it. It's simply a "let's make a rule, because we need more rules" ploy. "These things" were were discussing were "Québec's ideologies, being language and culture. Equalization is a seperate issue. I'd also be glad to do without equalization, but that would penalize all provinces beyond Ontario and Alberta. The only reason why Québec is so often mentioned when equalization is discussed is because it's the only province with almost a third of Canada's population falling under the equalization line, meaning they receive funding rather than pay into it. Much of this money is wasted on silly things like public day cares. I'll gladly agree that Québec mismanages its funds and should opt for less socialism, yet has nothing to do with language. It's unfortunate that so many people would be anti-Québec and/or anti-bilingualism. I can understand not liking Québec's infrastructure, but how can you hate a place if you've never been? Even if you have been, unless you move there and get involved, there's nothing you can do to change their infrastructure. I can understand being frustrated by bilingualism if one is a recent immigrant to Canada, ends up in Ottawa and then finds out that they should have learned both Canadian languages in order to optimize opportunities in the job market, but otherwise anyone should be able to anticipate if they need bilingualism or not. Anyone considering working for the federal gov't or in certain positions in Ottawa's private sector should achieve their second Canadian language before completing their studies. About Wal-Mart, they could shop at Wal-Mart easily until the unions revolted. I'm not a big fan of Québec's infrastructure either, but there's no reason for hating the people there just because they subject themselves to bureaucracy.

I was pointing out your silliness for associating the livelihood of a language with regional industry, which are completely unrelated. If people from the maritimes and Newfoundland achieve employment in Ottawa, they are taking jobs that could be staffed with Ottawans, so it's the same. Québécois wanting to work in Ottawa need English for most jobs so there's really no difference. Those who can't speak English can't easily cross the river for work. If anything Canadians from other RoC provinces have an easier time stealing jobs from Ontarians than the Québécois do, because they already speak English (at the exception of a few Acadians and a couple other Canadians). You can't force anyone to learn any language. No rights are being denied, because no one has any rights to a given job position; it's a privilege. If bilingualism is required, then anyone who is bilingual can achieve the job. No qualified person will be denied the job based on qualifications, therefore no rights are infringed. Essentially, yes. However, anyone wanting to represent the government of a country of two languages should be fluent in both languages. I hate the CanCon law and I am plenty aware of it. It's minimum is 35% CanCon for all CRTC licenced media with few exceptions (such as religious broadcasting and possibly a couple others, they're only required 10% if I recall correctly). It's the only thing keeping English Canadian culture alive, a dying culture, because most English Canadians would prefer to be assimilated into American culture. That much is true. The USA would never let freedom of speech be compromised with the exception of child pornography and maybe hate literature. It also pretty much guarantees the right to minorities to use whichever language they choose (provided they be understood).

Thanks for the citations. It makes sense that the NCC demand bilingualism from those renting their space. No one is forcing them to choose that property to run their business. You seem to relate the most irrelevant things to eachother. Location has nothing to do with language in this case. People from the maritimes and Newfoundland move to Ontario (and in some cases Alberta) because of the lack of work in their respective provinces. Does that mean that English is a dead language in the maritimes? Seriously, people living in Gatineau (which many are Ontarians looking for cheaper rent) work in Ottawa because that's where the work's at. Sure there's work in Montréal and Québec City, but Ottawa's a shorter commute. There is natural bilingualism because there are people justifying the demand for two languages. I tell Canadians of both languages that I think bilingualism should be required accross the country and I get roughly the same rate of people agreeing/disagreeing with me on both sides. Telling the Québécois that I value bilingualism wouldn't be as effective because the gov't is in Ottawa. Also I have no interest in moving to Québec because I enjoy Ottawa's bilingualism allowing me to work in two languages, have friends on both sides and get faster service than my monolingual neighbors because I can be served in whichever langauge provides a shorter waiting time since service in both languages is guaranteed in Ottawa. Monolingual Anglophones are being screwed because they refuse to pick up a skill that is available at tax payers' expense. Learning one's second Canadian language is now so widely available in Ottawa and children are taught both languages at school, therefore no one has a valid excuse for not being bilingual. It's been prety obvious in the last decade or so that more and more jobs in Ottawa would be requiring bilingualism, I would have figured that everyone would have seen it coming. Québec is maintaining these things without government assistance, whereas English Canadian culture would be almost completely inexistant had it not been for the CanCon law and the government subsidizing culture. English Canadians benefit more from laws concerning national media content and subsidies towards Canadian culture than French Canadians because without it, pretty much all music... etc. produced by Canadian artists never moving to the USA would be in French.

If it were a fact, you could most likely provide me with a citation. These businesses do not have to rent NCC-owned property. It's their choice. No one has to learn any language. There are more and better paying jobs in Ottawa than Gatineau, that's why so many cross one way and so few cross the other way on their way to work. The gov't is the employer in Ottawa. Aside the public sector, there are a fair amount of jobs in IT, otherwise there's not much of a private industry in Ottawa. Gatineau is fairly small and very residential. There's not much of an interest in expanding Gatineau's private sector. It would be unjust to tax certain people higher than other Canadians based on demography. Canadian tax payers often pay into things that benefit a minority of people. That's why everybody pays for it. Sure I can. Service in English is not being compermised by offering service in French, therefore not compermising the Anglophones' comfort in Ottawa. In that case there's nothing wrong with a high representation of a people of a certain region of Canada because they're just like any other Canadian. What are Québec's ideologies? A language cannot maintain ideologies with nor without federal intervention. That's a ridiculous idea. Québec practically rules itself and doesn't have to assimilate into its neighboring cultures. They aren't falling apart because of it, though. They cannot gain from federal language policies because they only care that French be the majority language in their province (which they have achieved) and they couldn't care less about languages beyond their provincial borders. Even without language policies, the federal government would serve people in French in Québec anyway, so these language policies don't affect them. Such language policies mostly benefit certain minority groups like Anglophone Québécois and Franco-Ontarians. If you don't ask, you do not receive. If Canadians don't ask to amend the constitution, it won't happen.

I will acknowledge your observation. However, nothing is wrong with this, because these restaurants and businesses etc. are choosing to rent these locations despite the conditions. There's no danger in hiring bilingual candidates in Ontario even if not required. It's not discriminating against the majority because Anglophones can be bilingual too. I boycott a fair share of companies and organizations, but for reasons completely unrelated to language. No one is forcing Anglophones to shop where the place is managed by Francophones. However, these shops are not suffering a big loss by losing a few spiteful customers who are identified as belonging to the majority group. I'd get a good laugh if a spiteful Anglophone needs to tank up in the middle of the night and the only nearby gas station is an Ultramar with a Francophone manager. "Oh no, wouldn't want my cash to fall in the hands of a Canadian of the other domestic language!" Seriously, Francophones are people just like anyone else. There may be a few of them who scheme ways of making your life miserable, however most are just normal people with good intentions wanting to make a living. I'll admit I over-estimated, but 15% is an underestimation. Check out this link: http://www.spcottawa.on.ca/Documents/Repor...Final_Wards.pdf It states 17.7% of Ottawa's entire population has French as a first language, but I like to include the people claiming Creole or Arabic as their first language yet speak more French than English as Francophones, so it's still most likely higher than 20%. I wouldn't consider a city with a bunch of embassies to be just any regular city. Ottawa is the capital and should reflect the federal official languages. No 'damage' has been done as a result of municipal language policies. Adding French does not take away from English. Anglophones can still live comfortably in Ottawa, so there is no real problem (except for people like you who actually hate people of a certain group). Yes, granted on a national basis this relates to all ten provinces and three territories. However it is completely fine to state that French is the majority language of Québec, because a majority can be measured on a regional basis, not strictly on a national basis. That's why I argued earlier that French is the majority language of Québec. The English are in England. If you're refering to Anglophone Canadians, those living in Québec are benefiting from federal language policies, and in certain regions of Neu-Braunschweig aswell (not like they make much of a difference, there are so few people living in that province anyway). Québec does not benefit from language policies, because without language policies the federal government's operations in Québec would be completely done in French due to the fact that French is Québec's majority language. In other words, in any place where one's first language is the majority language, one will not gain directly from language policies. There are indirect benefits, though. Even though a Canadian will not benefit from service in their second domestic language, it supports the region's minority language speaking community who contribute towards the local culture. I know, but I don't think that they are benefiting from this segregation. Really? When did the Canadians ask to amend the constitution?

I have never heard of this. The only shops I'd magine being affected by language policies would be in museums, which is understandable. Do you have a citation for this? I'm actually curious as to which proportion of stores in Ottawa would be affected by this. I doubt it would be the case for chain stores that are spread out in other provinces/states, despite the fact that pretty much all shops in Orléans expect their floor staff to be bilingual. Ottawa itself has a higher proportion of Francophones, around 30% last I heard. To be honnest if I were hiring staff for a shop in Ottawa, I'd prefer Lebanese Canadians who are fluent in English, French and Arabic, because such a language combination would most likely contribute to the potential revenue. Ottawa's the capital of Canada, and Gatineau is a neighboring city in another province. It would be nice if Ottawa, the capital of a country of two languages would offer both of those languages to its residents and visitors. Gatineau, however does not concern me at all. I never said I thought French were a majority language. Also, you just stated "outstide of Québec", meaning you're making an exception to Québec in your statement meaning you are admitting that English is not the majority language in Québec. That was one of my points earlier on. The majority language of Québec is French, and you cannot expect them to speak to you in any other language. Granted you cannot expect private industry to supply bilingual services, but you also cannot expect the private sector to use any given language. If a company wants to sell you something, they'll communicate with you in your language. If they figure that they don't speak your language and can do fine without your business, they will not communicate with you in your language. Language policies do not accomodate Québec accross Canada, they accomodate Canadians speaking either official language accross Canada. Québec has not been rewarded for not signing the contract. If anything they're being penalized, because they are the most segregated province. I'd like referenda on narcotics, abortion, marriage, immigration and immigrant integration, church and state, etc. Even in the most democratic countries you cannot get everything you want.

Haven't you heard of Soviet Russia jokes? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Russia_jokes). Québec should have signed, but now that they got away with it, nothing's going to change this. I also don't think they should have dibs on so much federal funding per capita either. We're in agreement on this issue... still irrelevant to language policies. It may not be the best democratic infrastructure, but it's still democratic. Because Canadian democracy still complies with the definition of democracy, you cannot rightfully claim Canada to be otherwise. Please read post #188.Yeah, that's my post... I wrote a lot in that one. Be more specific. The private sector is not forced to cater to any policy. They cater to Francophones because of its profitability. Private sector's favorite language is money and no other. What official policy are you making reference to.If there is no official policy, then no one is obliged to cater anyone but simply use the majority language of the land---English. You cannot demand someone speaks to you in your French language without some sort of official policy, nor anyone has to listen to you. Ok, I'll rephrase. In the case of the federal gov't, according to their language policies, Canadians have the right to be served in their prefered domestic language. In the case of the private sector, a demand for bilingualism means there is great profitability in serving in two or more distinct languages. No one is obliged to use the majority language either. If someone can make profit using only a minority language, there's no point holding 'em back (they still have to file taxes in one of the two domestic languages). You cannot demand someone speaks to you or will listen to you in any language. What's your point?

That is because basically most of the federal funding to do this goes to Quebec to celebrate their St. Jean Baptiste Day. Talk about treachery.You need "federal funding" to celebrate your own culture. Even if Québec didn't celebrate St. Jean Batiste, English Canadians would not be celebrating their culture. The Québécois and Americans are two great examples of people not needing government funding to celebrate their culture. They produce their own music, plays, cultural events and so forth and so on without government funding because they like to celebrate their own culture. It's understandable if the gov't funds certain holidays, but culture goes beyond a few days off work/school on the calendar.

They don't. It actually says so on the listing of offices (the one I went to). But you just have to get all upset and they'll have you at the front of the line, speaking to the only French person there in a jiffy. As I said I'm surprised that they had someone there who could serve you in French. If you can manage in French than you might as well take advantage of the shorter line. There is only one domestic language in Alberta. There never has been French people here ever (there is a small Metis settlement by Edmonton). German, Ukrainian or more recently Chinese are far more accurate cultural and historical languages to have dual service in. If they can speak English, they can save us all the cost of having duplicate services. No need for French service in Alberta at all, ever. Actually, there is a Franco-Albertan community, probably floating around 1% of Alberta's population (insignificant I'll admit, but still existing). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Albertan The other minorities may be able to speak English, but it only saves Alberta from serving them in their language if they are willing to speak it. The federal gov't guarantees service in both languages, whereas the Albertan gov't does not guarantee service in any language beyond English. I'd suppose it wouldn't be a priority for the federal gov't to staff their offices in Alberta with bilingual employees, but it would be handy to have at least one or two on call just in case. Besides, people going to federal offices are not necessarily from the province where the office is located. Unless a more qualified anglophone didn't get the job. You're suggesting that Anglophones are not bilingual. Also, people are not employed solely based on qualifications, they are hired based on how well they can convince the employer that they are the best candidate. If language skills are not required for the job, then they're graded as assets beyond the requirements for the job and do not contribute towards the required qualifications. I doubt hiring a bilingual person for such a position typically requiring say some computer skills and communication skills would be at the cost of not hiring a more qualified monolingual applicant.