Machjo

I fully agree. But we would have thought that a country so bent on human rights would have been quick, once the violation had been pointed out, to modify the constitution to conform to the new awareness of this flaw. The fact that it not only did not do so, but that the provincial government even defended it as a matter of history and tradition, is shameful. No, we are not perfect, and will always violate one human right or another. But a decent society will correct itself quickly on the heels of the discovery. Instead, we shrugged our shoulders and went on as usual. The constitution still hasn't changed as a result of this. And that reveals the true character of our nation today. A nation is not great for what it is, but for what it does.

In short, if we lose our principles, then how can we be moral leaders in the world. The US is a good example when it comes to nuclear non-proliferation. Can it honestly be a leader when it has nukes itself? Same applies with Canada. If we are violating religious rights (and the preference given in Ontario to one Faith school and not another is by its very definition), then how can Canada then go and speak to China about the religious rights of its people. It jsut makes Canada a laughing stock on the world stage just as the US is when it talks of nuclear non-proliferation.

It's a matter of principle, though. Canada has signed the UN Declaration of Human Rights. If we sign it, we should abide by it. If we don't intend to sin it, then let's ask that our signature be removed from it. To keep our signature on it, violate it, and then defend the violation while still insisting on taking on an international role in defending human rights abroad is no less than hypocritical.

They are when we defend them. The reason the UNCHR criticized Ontario on this twice was because Ontario did not even try to conform its laws to the UN Human Rights Charter. In fact, it defended the injustice, not on moral grounds, but on traditional constitutional grounds. It defended the injustice and did not even bother to even try to defend its decision on a moral scale, but simply on a constitutional one, implying that the constitution is set in stone and incapable of improvement. Is that the kind of attitude we want from a government? Well, it was elected, so I guess so. So it's our shame,Ontario's shame.

To take another example: Should I pride myself in being but a petty thief just because my neighbour is a mass murderer. How Canada compares with other countries is irelevent. What is relevent is how Canada now compares to itself 10 years ago. By the way, I hold all countries to this same standard. And if we look at it that way, China has made much more progress in its human rights over the last 10 years than Canada has. Sure we can take pride in that our human rights ten years ago were supeior to China's today. But it doesn't change the fact that while their society is progressing, ours is stagnating, basking in the pride of its past successes.

You're right. I guess, just as I expect more of myself than I do of others, I likewise expect more of my country than I do of other countries. If China goes from being a totalitarian regime with no human rights to one with some minimal human rights, I'll aplaud China for its progress. But if Canada goes from being among the best defenders of human rights in the world with only a few minor spots on its record to the same ten years later, with those same spots present, then while China is progressing and catching up, Canada is just stagnating. I don't applaud blind pride in what we have, no matter how good it is. I applaud progress, from no matter how low it starts.

Interesting. Thugh I don't agree with the government giving so much money to the NWT, I can also see the point Smallc is making here. Reduce government spending, pay off the federal debt, and then start either reducing taxes or, at the very least, make more of our tax money charity-deductible so that we can decide where it goes. Preferably reduce our taxes. Failing that, then at least let us give it to the charity fo our choice.

I believe the UNCHR had criticized Quebec on that point too if I'm not mistaken, but I'd have to confirm that to be sure. I do know that it's criticized Ontario's preference for Catholic over other religious schools twice already, and Canada is a signatory to the UN Human Rights Charter. Quite embarrassing really.

Another point I should make is that while official unilingualism is logically the most efficient organizational administrative language policy, it can differ from organization to organization. For example, I'd have no issue with the provincial government of Ontario adopting English as its official language of internal administration (i.e. all provincial governmentstaff must know English and be capable of communicating in English upon request), while at the same time the local government somewhere in the province should choose to adopt French as its sole official language of internal administration. And even below that, for a local hospital in a city the official language of internal administration fo which is English adopt French as its sole language of internal administration. The main issue is that any organization funded by the taxpayer should aim to have but one official language of internal administrationwhatever language that might be, as a means of saving money on translation costs. Translation is expensive, and all the more so when on a national scale.

I would fully agree with Ontario adopting one official language of government administration. I would oppose its imposing this language on the private sector though. Th rhetoric isn't helping your cause here. You're free to promote whatever idea you want, but please try to argue your case rationally.

I may disagree with you on a few points, Canadien, but at least you're consistent and well-intentioned in your support for official bilingualism, and I respect that. This is a perfect example of my siding with someone I disagree with because I at lest trust his intentions, while standing opposed to someone I agree with on some points because of his questionable motives. This is something Leafless needs to learn. His attitude alienates even potential supporters.

But there are different kinds of protest, Leafless: 1. You write a courteous letter to your MP, MPP, city councillor, etc. recommending a policy change, and presenting rational arguments for it. 2. You come on foaming at the mouth suggesting your race and ethnicity is somehow morally superior to all others.

To some degree, I think Quebec has a good balance. On the one hand, it has but one official language. On the other, civil servants who can function in English or any other language are certainly not prohibited from doing so. Thogh again, I think Bill 101 goes way too far in its invovlement in the private sector. But as far as the official language of government policy goes, I think that's a fine balance. To get a job in the Quebec government, you must know the official language, and any other language is a nice asset to have. You have a duty as a Quebec public servant to be able to serve people in French. But if the person doesn't know it, you're still allowed to switch to their language if you can speak it. Beyond that, however, the Quebec government doesn't waste its money in teaching any other language to its public servants. You're sexpected to meet the sandards before you get the job, and then the government satisfies itself with that. Efficient, in my opinion, and saves much money in pointless language courses for civil servants. I woud suport this in any organization. I just don't see how Leafless can straightfacedly support this kind of policy ofr Ontario and then criticize Quebec for the same.

In the first, I mean 'do you identify with individual persons you can communicate with, who share a common language with you'? And in the second, 'do you identify more abstractly to whatever language is said to be the official national language evenif you can't speak it yourself'? My motive is to try tounderstand uniingual native English-speakers who defend Official Biingualism as it currently stands. I've seen some, especially in Rabble.ca, defend Official Bilingualism frothing at the mouth. Yet when I'd switch language to French, they couldn't follow me. And I don't support Official Bilingualism as it currently stands. I'm just trying to understand what it is that causes so many unilingual native English-speakers outside of Quebec to so pasionately defend Official Bilignualism, even more so than many French-speakers do. I was hoping maybe this thread could shed some kind of light on this.

The poll is not about that directly, but how you identify with this reality. For example, do you identify more closely with central quebecers or Britons in your heart and mind, culturally. I often hear people talking about Canada having one culture, yet seem to have closer ties with foreigners than with their own compatriots. So does it really have one culture? Or another way of looking at it: Cultrually, would you say there is more in common between a unilingual French Quebecer and a unilingual English Albertan, or between a unilingual ENglish Albertan and a unilingual Englishman? If the latter, then how would you understand your linguistic and cultural identity in relation to your national identity. I admit my poll might not have ben well made. But I'm just curious how unilingual Enlgish-speakers here feel about this. Do you feel closer to a Quebecer or a Texan?

Leafless, if you're so concerned about your imaginary white culture, why don't you just join this organization: http://www.resist.com/ I'm sure you'll blend right in.

Now I could certainly see the argumen for cutting government spending to the territories, and provinces too for that matter. However, the fact that the govrnment is curently spending too much money there doesn't in and of itself eliminate their right to be heard like any other Canadian. If you talk taxes, I'm all for cutting government spending, but it would seem that libertarians and conservatives support government tax reductions on different grounds. For the Libertarian, it's just a matter of fiscal responsbility, nothing personal against anbody and no ill will intended. For the conservatives, it seems to be a way to 'get back at Quebec' or 'to show those indjuns'. It's the attitude of many conservatives that turns me off. I could vote Libertarian, but they're not likely to win an election. Next up would be the Green Party, the most economically conservative without having that 'we'll show those damned Frenchies and indjun's' attitude. The Conservative Party of Canada, on the other hand, is quite repulsive overall. Yes, I pften find mself agreeing with some of spending cuts, but then it just ruins it by shifting spending to the military, even worse, or cutting taxes without cutting spending. Again, even worse than not cutting taxes. Personally, I'd rather see a government cut spending first, followed by taxes. That's truly conservative in my book. The CPC goes about it backwards, and in the meanest of spirits. Cut spending, yet. But start off with spending cuts that won't hurt the poor first, and then cut that spending last. The conservatives do exactly the opposite. Sure, I'm all for reducing government spending in the territories, but not because of some attitude that the territories don't matter. Such an attitude is revolting.

So in other words, human rights are directly proportional to political weight? Wow. Sucks to be an aboriginal in Canada, eh.

How so?

How you identify with the language. For instance, I would feel quite at home in any English-speaking, French-speaking, or Esperanto-speaking environment. If surrounded by people who speak only one of these languages, I wouldn't feel like a stranger at all, but rather as a member of a common linguistic community. I don't feel that way to the same degree with Mandarin Chinese since my ability to communicate in it is still somewhat limited. I'd feel quite like an outsider in an Arabic or Persian environment since my abilities there are even more limited. And I'd feel like I might as well be on another planet if you airdropped me in an exclusively Swahili speaking environment. For me though, I would likely feel more at home in the UK and France than I would in some parts of Nunavut, in my own country, just because I can communicate there. In some parts of Nunavut, communication might be difficult. So I was wondering. Those here who don't know French. Where would you feel most at home? With whom would you feel the closest bond between a central Quebecer sho knows no English and a Briton? Personally, if I didn't know French, I think, based on what I do know about myself, that I'd likely identify more easily with the Briton than with the unilingual French-speaking Quebecer. Or inversely, if I didn't know English, I'm sure I could identify more easily with a Frenchman than with a unilingual Albertan. From my obsevations, unilingual Anglophones are more likely to watch the BBC or read the London times than they are to watch TV5 or Le Devoir. Likewise inversely for a unilingual French-speaker. Same with making friends, even on the internet. You're more likely in this forum to chat with a Briton than with a unilingual Quebecer. From my observations, it would seem that we identify more strongly with our language group than we do with our national compatriots. So the purpose of this poll is to see if I'm right or not. maybe I'm wrong. Maybe on some other level, some people can in fact identify more easily with compatriots than with people who share a common language. If so, I wouldn't mind hearing your stories of how that manifests itsel in your daily lives.

Nunavut is quadrilingual English, French, Inuinnaqtun and Inuktitut.

Does language identity relate to the person or the group?

Not all in Quebec are sovereigntists. By the way, I'm curious. You complain alot, but what are youre recommendations other than that everyone else should just assimilat to your culture?

First off, you're totally stereotyping Quebecers and insulting their culture, and then pretend to like them. yeah right. It really is a shame that you have such an insulting view of us, because I do agree with some of your points on some occasions, yet can't support you because of your motives. Even on the few points we can agree on, we disagree fundamentally on why we support that view. Generally speaking, I would be more inclined to support someone I disagree with but whom I consider well-intentioned, than someone I agree with but whose motives I question. My opposition to official bilingualism stems to some degree from a moderately libertarian view of the world. Yours seems to stem out of a belief that all Quebecers hate Engish-speakers, that all Quebecers oppose freedom, and that the very roots of French cultures oppose it. Have you never heard of Descarte, Montesquieux, Rousseau, etc. Compare that to Carlyle. I actually like many of Carlyle's ideas, though they certainly are critical (in many cases legitimately so in my opinion) of democracy. Should I take Carlyle and stereotype all Englishs-speakers? Or what about that Reformer who'd trampled on a Quebec flag under Manning's leadership? Sure there's igotry in Quebec, but now you seem to be saying that ALL French_Quebecers are like that.

A quarter century is not a long time. Just this morning in fact. In the world of language policy, it can take a generation for the policy to take effect, So in the context of language, policy, that's just this morning. And the British Council receives most of its funding from the British Government. And if you want something more recent:, how about this statement from the UK PM in 2008: http://www.britishcouncil.org/new/press-of...ative-20080123/ Linguistic Imperialism at its best. Canada's CIDA is just more subtle about it; you have to look around in book stores abroad to find its involvement in this. And I'm not denying that we can hear and read the same kinds of comments in French. I'm just saying it's alive and well in English. Look at this too. from 2003 I believe: http://www.tesolislamia.org/articles/TEML.pdf and http://www.basic-english.org/institute.html All involving the exploitation of English to benefit the English-speaking peoples unfairly on the world stage. And yes, we find the same kind of thing in English, equally reprehensible. I'm ust saying that French-speakers have not monopolized this domain and English speakers are just as involved in it as French-speakers are.