Machjo

Then why not reform the UN if that's the issue. Besides, Ontario and Quebec don't always see eye to eye either, yet that doesn't stop Canada from fighting wars. Now I understand that there's a difference between having a vote and veto power. Fine. Ten let's just reform the UN to remove veto power if that's the issue.

That statement is a little ambiguous. What are you suggesting? Are you opposed to a 100,000 man cap or similar? Or do you mean something else?

Howso? I'm proposing that the world's nations each contribute a portion of their GDP to such a global force, thus allowing us all to reduce our national military forces. The overall reductions in national military spending would likely surpass the spending increase on the world force by far. remember that everyone would be contributing to the international force, whereas each national government would be expected to pay for its own on its own.

No, but seeing the UN opposed Bush's war in iraq, the US never had authority to attack. And since Hussain had nada to do with 9/11, it was an act of agresion. By all accounts, it was an illegal invasion.

But couldn't a global force allow Canada to do so at lower cost by 'sharing' a force? As was mentioned above, 100,00 well trained and equipped men might not be enough. Fine. I woulnd't support a world force more powerful than that though just to avoid too much power in the ands of too few. but I could see this force supplemented by national forces. This would allow us to ensure protection while still saving money.

This would likely save money that could thenbe diverted to health care. After all, such a force woudl allow Canada to reduce its own military to a bare minimum. As for the world force, it woulf of course be funded by all nations, thus making individual national contributions miuscule. Actually, a UN force woudl likely be less prone to war than national ones. If we observe history, the UN has approved police action only on the rarest of occasions. Compare that with Harper wanting to send troops into Iraq (illegal according to Annan).

I was thinking more of a force with a narrower mandate. Essentially, a governmen-byuster, a force designed to destroy a rogue government quickly and then pull out. This would mean of course that national militaries and police forces might need to provide back up. Honestly though, though I see the obvious advantages of a world military force, I'd have my concerns in making it too powerful. I'd rather have some limits to its power, and if it needs to be supplemented, then perhaps individual countries coudl do so with their national forces. but this would still allow nations to save money by at least reducing their overall military spending even if they do keep a national force of their own.

What I think we need is an global military force comprising no more than 100,000 well trained and equipped men. Considering how complex our world has become, a national military force alone, without the backing of a global force, fully multilingual and thus more capable of engaging in hearts and minds campaings (the failure of which was a major source of agony in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan) is fast becoming a relic of the bygone era.

I have noticed inconsistencies in the arguments against the Conservative Party. I appreciated the wilingness of the Liberals and NDP to form a co-alition with Bloc support, but consistency also requires me to support attemts at colaboration between the NDP, Conservatives and Bloc too.

Actually, I think a 'third-way' party might be good for Canada. A few provincial NDP governments and a few federal Liberal governments have managed to pull it off in the past. If any Canadian political party could present itself as the federal 'third-way' party of choice, it might attract much support among those who'd like to see a less partisan or ideological Parliament capable of borrowing good ideas freely equally from both the right and the left.

Good points. Perhaps decentralization might be a solution. Then again, as for promoting FN languages, I've also considered another possibility: Take money currently being spent on Offiical Bilingualism and redirect that towards the writing and publication of quality self-instruction books for FN languages that don't have such books already, then those who do want to learn these languages could do so. It might also help to depoliticize the issue. After all, those who want to learn the local indigenous language but can't owing to a lack of existent necessary resources will naturally feel the need to engage politically to promote FN languages. But if the government just made those resources available, then they'd likely be happy to just buy them, go home, study the language themselves, and bow out of the politics of it. This would likely make all sides happy., The right woudl be happy to see the left calm down a bit on this issue, and the left would just be happy to finally have access to these resources. Perhaps that's a better solution than the complicated one I'd proposed above.

By the way, Riverwind, I wouldn't mind you responding to the other arguments presented in the other threads, just to have an idea of where you stand on the arguments they present. Again, I'm mainly trying to find an acceptable synthesis beteen the right and the left, and just trying to feel the pulse on both sides of the political spectrum right now on this issue.

As for any general policy pressuring communities to favour Aboriginal languages, even the opening post makes exception for state-owned schools, allowing them to teach the second-language of their choice according to the free market. It's not the same as decentralization, but rather deregulation. I take it by decentralization that you're proposing that the local government should decide what second-language is to be taught. I don't know what to think of that. On the one hand, it could allow more liberal-minded communities to grant their local schools more freedom of choice in language learning, or alternatively it could allow some communities to restrict the freedom schools have in deciding what second-language to teach, as is the case now but at the provincial level. I suppose looking at it that way, seeing that the current Ontario provincial system is quite stiffling as it is, decentralizaiton couldn't make it much worse anyway, no matter how restrictive the local government is (as it is, French is compulsory in most schools as a second-language already).

Actually, instead of quoting people back and forth, I'll just link to the threads: http://rabble.ca/babble/central-canada/ide...comment-1060477 http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/view...29371267878a42b

You're correct, but according to the original proposal presented above, state-owned schools and private schools that would apply directly to the MoE to participate in the voucher programme would be free to teach Klingon if they wanted to, the only stipulation being that they must attract parents on the free market sinse they're only source of revenue would be from the vouchers. Fair enough. Thanks.

That doesn't negate the academic value of the local indigenous languages for their grammatical and etymological elements alone. I could agree with that, and that's one reason I'd proposed a voucher system. So while the proposal above would give schools the freedom to choose the second-language of their choice, they'd still have to take parents' wishes into account while making that choice. By the way, do you mind if I shoulr quote you in other forums relatied to this same topic?

I agree with this at least to a certain degree. If you look at Canadian NGO's, you'll find that English-Canadian NGOs generally have closer ties with paralle NGOs in other English-speaking countries than they do with their homologues in Quebec. The same applies of course with Quebec NGOs with regard to their homologues in France, Belgium, etc. We likewise find similarly in the market, especially with regards to the cultural industry, concerning books, gazettes, magazines, films, songs, etc. If we look at it that way, it is important for Canada to open its borders wide so that just as English-Canada can build closer ties with its homologues in other English-speaking countries, so its French-speaking homologues could do with same with theirs in other French-speaking parts of the world.

From my understanding, at lest some indigenous languages in Canada are grammatically quite complex and even include grammatical elements that are not found in either French or English. Seeing that Inuktitut includes many words for snow, some of the subtleties of the word might not exist in any French or English equivalent. By the sounds of that, it woudl appear that these languages have just as much academic value as any other for those among us who love grammar. In fact, from an intellectual standpoint, it woudl likley prove even more academically valuable owing to the wider range of differences betwee, say, Algonquin and English and latin and English. Woudl it not be cheaper, instead of forcing them to learn French, to simply let them learn the other language instead, thus rediverting funds from French to the other language rather than adding funds on top of French, not to mention the time spent in both languages rather than one language, if we really insist on looking at it from an economic standpoint?

By the way, seeing that North Air actually gives hiring preference to those who know Inuktitut, and considering that Inuktitut is among the official languages of resource-rich Nunavut, it would seem that not all indigenous languages are useless depending on where you live. By the way, according to Stats Can 2006, about 8% of Nunavummiut know neither English nor French.

By the way, Riverwind, would you mind if I quoted you? I could keep it anonymous, no problem, but would just like your permission to quote you in another forum if you don't mind.

I take it you're monolingual? You are aware, aren't you, that language plays a major role in a person's cultural identity? Any bilingual will tell you that, regardless of the two languages he speaks, and regardless of where in the world he lives. In fact, even a monolingual witnessing the encroachment of his territory by another language will feel it. It's even been found that language conflict had contributed considerably to the conflict in the Balkans in the 90s. The idea that we should just allow the local indigenous language to be trampled underfoot is beyond me. Now to take an example, if inglish is just a tul eniwey, yu wont maind mai speling az long az yu andirstand it, rait? personly, ai downt sii the point uv maiking the pluril of 'maus 'mais' when 'mausiz' wud du djust fain. besaidz, languidj iz not about kultur or aidenteti, bat abaut nothing mor dhan praktikl comunikaishn.

I'd like to add tooo that considering that our indigenous languages are indigenous to Canada while French and English, along with Latin and Greek are f foreing origin, how can we not give the local indigenous language equal freedom as a second language in school. Even the ALberta school system allows for that already for Blackfoot and Cree.

Thanks for the response. By the way, I've posted the proposal at Rabble.ca (very left-leaning) and Freedominion.ca (very right-leaning) so as to get a wider ideological perspective. If appropriate, would you mind if I cut and pasted your response in my other threads to explore other options? Now onto your comments. What about the proposal of allowing for sign languages (already included in the proposal above). After all, it is very difficult for the deaf to learn sign languages, be they official or not, so would it not be helpful for some of the hearing community to learn the local sign language to help the deaf expand their network of friends and thus help them integrate better into the hearing community? Also, concerning the Official Languages Act. That was really nothing more than pragmatic political maneuvering on the part of Trudeau to try to keep Canada together and the sovereigntist camp at bay, and not some overarching moral principle that cannot be changed. besides, so few learn their second official language well anyway, more language choice will likely not make much difference overall. Just look at Stats Can for language competence. Also, there would be nothing in this that I could see that would violate the OLA legally. Sure it flies in the face of the spirit of the OLA (which is really just a pragmatist political spirit though), but does not violate it on legal grounds. BC and Albertal alow for much freedom on that front already, and I've heard that the Ontario Ministry of Education makes exceptions already for local indigenous languages off reserve if the local school board approves it. Add to that that learning different languages could be beneficial to international trade, diplomacy, military purposes (remember the windtalkers), and other specialized uses (sign languages are also used extensively by some scuba divers, and for other practical purposes when people are at a distance from one another and have access to binoculars, etc.). I would be interested in your comments on this.

Plese ignore this post.