Machjo

I think that's obvious, to me anyway. If what you're saying is that you agree that blingualism n school should not be limited to French in English Canada, then I completely agree. There is no point trying having a school trying to teach French to a pupil whose parents are investing all their time teaching him Chinese. Obviously it would make more sense for theschool to exploit that natural advantage. If the parents teach their child spoken Chinese at home and then the schol teaches him a smattering of French at school, then in the end he's essentially monolingual, with limited ability in both French and Chinese. If, however, the school decides to build on what is taught i the home and teaches him written Chinese in school while theparents teach him spoken chinese in thehome, then clearly he has a muchgreater chance of success in becoming bilignual. But to achieve this, schools must be given more freedom to exploit the local environment ad other factors to their advantage. At the moment, with French being compulsory across Ontario, schools have their hands tied behind their backs in this, and in this respect, we can't blame the schools entirely (they're just doing what they're told by the Ministry of Education). This becomes a matter for the Ministry of Education to fix bychanging its rules and giving each school the freedom to teach the second language of its choice, and to prohibit any school from making any second language compulsory unless that school can guarantee a reasonable chance of achieving fluency.

Sorry you're right. ew Brunswick. And Chretien and Dion were just trying to speak English. Can you speak French as well as they can speak English?

Sorry, but I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here?

Even in Montreal, I've met residents who did not know English, as well as residents who did not know French. Sure they were a minority (in Montreal, the vast majority is bilingual), but present and existent anyway, in Canada's third most populous city. In Quebec city likewise, once we left the Old City, that was it, French all the way unless you were satisfied with someone giving you directions to thelocal libarary in broken English, and that is in the capital of Canada's second most populous province. So no, French is far from dead in Canada. You just haven't left your home town much, that's all.

You obviously haven't travelled much. I've lived in central Quebec and I can say from my own observations that even secondary school teachers there are not even functional in English unless they're teaching English.

Seeing how many billions are wasted on this nationwide, though, I'm surprised that this is never an election issue. There's no point making a second-language compulsory unless you can guarantee a decent chance of success, and 15% is not decent in my humble opinion. No teacher would tolerate such a grade on a pupil's report card, so how can we tolerate it on the report card of a ministry of education? Yet we do.

I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that our views, though not identical, are likley nearly so. As for 'sccess', I'd define it as the ability to use the language independently of other languages, so a much higher rate than is currently expected. As for chances of success, seeing that right now, only aobut 15% of Canadians claim to know both official languages, if this should reflect the percentage of schools that can guarantee a reasonable rate of success, then it might be only about 15% of schools that could in fact defend their right to make a second-language compulsory. And chances are that many of these schools would be located in mostly bilingual communities. It might be possible to expand the rate a little by breaking out of the confines of English and French only. For instance, some schools in Vancouver might be able to guarantee a decent chance of success in Mandaring if they are located in a predominantly Mandarin-speaking part of town. And if it can do that, then it might be able to gain the right to make Mandarin compulsory as a second language in that particular school. Or another school might try the strategy of teaching an easier second language. Whatever strategy should be applied though, if the school can't guarantee a decent chance of success, then ift forfeits its right to make it compulsory, and at least in the beginning that would likely apply to the vast majority of schools in English Canada and a small majority of schools in French Canada.

First off, there's no such language as 'Canadian'. We have two European languages as our official languages (English and French)... at the federal level. All provinces but one (Newfoundland and Labrador) and two territories have but one (English or French) official language. Nunavut has four (English, French, Inuktitut, and Inuinnaqtun).

I agree that unless a schol can gurantee a good chance of fluency before the end of compulsory education, it forfeits its moral right to make it compulsory. However, if a school can guarantee a good chance of success, then it aught to make a second-language compulsory, as it opens the mind to information and world-views that would otherwise not be accessible. This is not just about jobs, but also about peace. Communities that can't communicate with one another are more likely to harbour stereotypes about each other than those who can. And this can lead to or fuel conflicts. As for elitism, that's where I believe giving schools more language options could be of advantage, whereby if one second-language is too difficult to learn, they could teach an easier oneinstead, not just for jobskills, but to promote more communication between groups and thus more peace.

Here's what I typed on another thread, but it does apply to this debate too (with some modifications): As far as I'm concerned, there is no hard and fast rule as to whether a multi-nation state can succeed. I think it depends on how willing the participants are to integrate. In Indonesia, with over 300 ethnic groups, there is surprisingly little tension considering how many ethnic groups we're dealing with. One issue is our inability to settle our differences. A simple example is the following mixed-language though not bilingual (i.e., it uses both English and French, but neither is necessarily a translation of the other) video, funded at least in part by the National Film Board of Canada in 1974: http://www.vigile.net/Speak-White,9775 Though it is old, it is still presented on many sovereigntist websites today. That's where I'd found it. No, I'm not necessarily a sovereigntist myself. But how can we engage the sovereigntist movement without first understanding it? If you look at that video, you'll see how it promotes certain ethnic sterotypes of Anglos as racist. It's titled 'Speak White', clearly provocative even in 1974, or so I'd imagine, when it was created. 'Speak white' would have a strong connotation as it comes from an expression used by certain Anglos when addressed in French, not only at the time the video was released, but even today (it had happenned to me once in Ottawa). One problem though is that many sovereigntists are not functional in English. So while they see such videos stereotyping Anglos as racists, and comparing them to Nazis and KKK members (as you'll see in the video), and presenting them as arrogant classists treating francophones as 'the white niggers of America' (a term sometimes used, though less often now than before since Quebec has developed much since the Quiet Revolution, by Quebecers in an ironic sense to emphasize their perceived marginalization in Canadian society as was the case with blacks in the US. America here is of course referring to the continent, not the country), they have little real contact with English-speakers unless those English-speakers happen to know French. Even the internet can't bridge that gap. You might also want to see the following videos of Patrick Bourgeois: In them, he talks about 'Quebec Bashing'. It would seem that he knows English well himself, based on how eruditely he has translated select passages from the English-language media. For the most part, he quotes are negative stereotypes about Quebec, from journalists, TV reporters, TV interviewees, letters to the editors, etc. His selection mainly consists of quotes that are highly ethnicist and offensive to Quebecers, portraying them as racists, backwards, etc. He then laughs them off along with the audience (many of whom might not know English), and then goes on to show how the same quotes could just as easily apply to the Anglos, or that they're totally baseless and trace their roots to ingnorant comments made in history but that have stuck. In one example specimen that portrays Quebec as anti-semite and referring to Jaques Parizeau's comments, though he doesn't defend Parizeau, he does point out two things: 1. That Parizeau is but one person and should not reflect on all sovereigntists. and 2. How it was Canada and not Quebec that had turned away many Jews from Nazi Germany prior to the Second World War, many of whom had no choice but to return to the Nazi regime. He adds emphais that only a few hundred Jews were even accepted by the whole nation at that time. Now how can we break down these kinds of stereotypes on both sides when we don't even have a common language? Only about 15% of Canadians know both languages, and we're all busy with our lives too, so can't be translating everything between the two languages, now can we? So how do we ensure that monolingual Quebecers can in fact get a more balanced view of English Canada, and vice versa? Just visit Quebec internet forums. Many of them, especially the sovereigntist ones, comprise mostly monolinguals for all intents and purposes. And the same applies for the most part in English-language forums. There is but minimal exchange of information on either side. How to break that barrier? This by the way applied not only to areas of much contact between the two groups. When I was selling chocolates for a school ski trip in Victoria, BC when I was 12, a kind man who had just pullod out his wallet had asked me which school it was for. Sicne he coulnd't understand the pronunciaiton of the school, I'd explained that it was a French-medium school. His immediate reaction was to put his wallet back into his pocket, say, and I quote, 'I don't like French people', and walk away. The sudden change in his behaviour threw me away. Though I'd been exposed to language politics before too. Again in Victoria, BC, I'd once overheard teachers in the hallways complaining about unfair allocationof funds for French-medium schools in BC. True or not, I don't know. But you can see how even chidren's views of Canada can change based on how adults, including teachers, present themselves as role models to them concerning inter-group relations in Canada. When I was working as an adult in La Malbaie one year, since I knew the local high school teachers well, I got an image of their attitudes too. I remember hearing them on the rare occasion refr to the 'maudits anglais!'. Though not used often, it doesn't matter. It only needs to be heard once to have its effect. If even teachers are engaging in this inter-group conflict in public in high schools, imagine the student body coming out of these schools. And La Malbaie and Victoria aren't exactly next door toeach other. So this is clearly a national issue.

When did I evr say that we should make the indigenous languages official languages of Canada?AllI'm saying is that we're having a grand exchange on this thread about 'our' rights while some of the nation's indigenous languages are currently threatened with extinction.

Watch out for the elephants. I see how the two elephants of English and French fight on for turf while the First nations and Inuit mice get trampled underfoot. It's amazing how our colinial mindset continues to work. We're so concerned about French-language rights in Victoria, BC and Quebec, Quebec. But what about the First Nations and the Inuit. Shoudl they not have the same rights? But then you can see how expensive it would become to manage all of these languages. I think we have 64 of them if I remember correctly. With French and English, 66! So how do we balance practicality with justice? How do we decide which languages shold be more equal than others?

As far as I'm concerned, there is no hard and fast rule as to whether a multi-nation state can succeed. I think it depends on how willing the participants are to integrate. In Indonesia, with over 300 ethnic groups, there is surprisingly little tension considering how many ethnic groups we're dealing with. One issue is our inability to settle our differences. A simple example is the following mixed-language though not bilingual (i.e., it uses both English and French, but neither is necessarily a translation of the other) video, funded at least in part by the National Film Board of Canada in 1974: http://www.vigile.net/Speak-White,9775 Though it is old, it is still presented on many sovereigntist websites today. That's where I'd found it. No, I'm not necessarily a sovereigntist myself. But how can we engage the sovereigntist movement without first understanding it? If you look at that video, you'll see how it promotes certain ethnic sterotypes of Anglos as racist. It's titled 'Speak White', clearly provocative even in 1974, or so I'd imagine, when it was created. 'Speak white' would have a strong connotation as it comes from an expression used by certain Anglos in Quebec when addressed in French, not only at the time the video was released, but even today. One problem though is that many sovereigntists are not functional in English. So while they see such videos stereotyping Anglos as racists, and comparing them to Nazis and KKK members (as you'll see in the video), and presenting them as arrogant classists treating francophones as 'the niggers of America' (a term sometimes used, though less often now than before since Quebec has developed much since the Quiet Revolution, by Quebecers in an ironic sense to emphasize their perceived marginalization in Canadian society as was the case with blacks in the US), they have little real contact with English-speakers unless those English-speakers happen to know French. Even the internet can't bridge that gap. You might also want to see the following videos of Patrick Bourgeois: in them, he talks about 'Quebec Bashing'. It would seem that he knows English well himself, based on how eruditely he has translated select passages from the English-language media. For the most part, he quotes negative stereotypes about Quebec, from journalists, TV reporters, TV interviewees, letters to the editors, etc. His selection mainly consists of quotes that are highly ethnicist and offensive to Quebecers, portraying them as racists, backwards, etc. He then laughs them off along with the audience (many of whom might not know English), and then goes on to show how the same quotes could just as easily apply to the Anglos. In one example specimen that portrays Quebec as anti-semite and referring to Jaques Parizeau's comments, though he doesn't defend Parizeau, he does point out two things: 1. That Parizeau is but one person and should not reflect on all sovereigntists. and 2. How it was Canada and not Quebec that had turned away many Jews from Germany prior to the Second World War, many of whom had no choice but to return to Germany. Now how can we break down these kinds of stereotypes on both sides when we don't even have a common language? Only about 15% of Canadians know both languages, and we're all busy with our lives too, so can't be translating everything between the two languages, now can we? So how do we ensure that monolingual Quebecers can in fact get amore balanced view of English Canada, and vice versa? Just visit Quebec internet forums. Many of them, especially the sovereigntist ones, comprise mostly monolinguals for all intents and purposes. And the same applies for the most part in English-language forums. There is but minimal exchange of information on either side. How to break that barrier?

1. When it comes to second-language teaching policy, the world is relevent. After all, learning to communicate with the world is part of its objectvie, even if it is a provincial govenment mandate. The world is highly integrated now. 2. English might be a fine international language for the elites, but by no means for the general population, thus creating a new class divide, inappropriate in a democratic society. And even among the elits, it poses problems. it's estimated that about 15% of aircrashes are caused by a poor command of English! And when I was in China, I was amazed to hear of court cases international businesses faced resulting from mistranslations of contracts. 4. English isn't cheap. All the sources I've looked at suggest that in spite of a low rate of success, English instruction costs the world at least billions of dollars annually, possibly over a trillion. Not small fry stuff.

What a considerate chap. I'm sure you'll agree with this too then: Our language is our greatest asset, greater than North Sea Oil, and the supply is inexhaustible; furthermore, while we do not have a monopoly, our particular brand remains highly sought after. I am glad to say that those who guide the fortunes of this country share my conviction in the need to invest in, and exploit to the full, this invisible, God-given asset’. (British Council, Annual Report, 1883-84, Phillipson, 1992, p.144-145).

I agree with you there, but language plays a major role none-the-less. A monolingual English-speaker can communicate with about 7-10% of the world's population quite well, not to mention his access to much literature, be it of a literary or academic nature or otherwise. The monolingual speaker of Inuktitut however can't afford such a luxury. So while the monolingual English-speaker might choose to invest his time and money in more profitable courses than language, the monolingual speaker of Inuktitut might have not much choice but to invest much of his time and money learning English or French. In this respect, we can say that the refusal on the part of a person to learn a second language is a form of linguistic imperialism whereby he's esentially imposing his language on others, thus making second-language acquisition a moral issue too.

Waldo, Sorry if 'condemnation' was too harsh. Thanks for clarifying. But it's still suggestion that Canada is still in violation as you pointed out. I also agree that whether the UN had commented on it or not, it would still be the right thing to do; but since people have continued to defend it, I figured this still adds at least a little more weight to it. After all, how can Canada be defending international law and justice abroad when Canada itself ignores it?

So I take it you defend special privileges based on religious affiliation in the Canadian Constitution?

We need to distinguish between Judaism and Zionism. Though Zionism is often criticized by the Un through criticisms of Izraeli actions, the UN has made it clear that it will not tolerate anti-semitism (prejudice against the Jewish Faith). Granted it said nothing about Zionism, but bear in mind that Zionism is not a religion but a political ideology which has been criticized even by Jews themselves. The UN itself admits that anti-semitism got out of hand last time owing to confusions between Zionism and anti-semitism, but it has lernt its leson and will not tolerate anti-semitism again. Essentially, by boycotting the conference, Harper is showing suppport not for Jews, but for Zionism.

Or let's go with dictionary.com Patriotism: –noun devoted love, support, and defense of one's country; national loyalty. nationalism: 1. national spirit or aspirations. 2. devotion and loyalty to one's own nation; patriotism. 3. excessive patriotism; chauvinism. 4. the desire for national advancement or independence. 5. the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one's own nation, viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations. 6. an idiom or trait peculiar to a nation. 7. a movement, as in the arts, based upon the folk idioms, history, aspirations, etc., of a nation. imperialism noun 1. the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies. 2. advocacy of imperial interests. 3. an imperial system of government. 4. imperial government. 5. British. the policy of so uniting the separate parts of an empire with separate governments as to secure for certain purposes a single state. Among the definitions above, I think most would agree that imperialism is not a good thing. As for nationalism, it clearly has some negative nuances such as 'excesive patriotism; chauvinism'. patriotism seems to the the only one that avoids such possibly negative connotations.

I would define imperialism in a number of ways, one of which is a belief in the desirability on the part of one nation to dominate another. Another definition could be the actual dominance of one nation by another. In this respect, it is possible for a person to believe in the moral superiority of his nation over others, a form of national chauvinism, without necessarily desiring to dominate them. He might prefer isolationism as a way to protect his country from 'undesirable influences' instead. So based on those two definitions, nationalism and imperialism would be two separate ideas that could overlap but wouldn't necessarily overlap.

That depends on how one understands those terms. Here's how I define those terms: nationalism: a belief in the moral superiority of one nation over another patriotism: love of one's country According to the definitions above, I would not call myself a nationalist but a patriot. But then what does that mean. I can love all of my friends and family members, and even my fellow man. So clearly love for one does not necessarily have to come at the expense of love for another. Based on the definition of patriotism above, one could be a patriot and still love all other countries just as much as he loves his own. Additionally, if I love a person, I want what's best for him. That might mean being frank and honest with him, or giving him tough love. I might even call the police on him if he does bad, not because I hate him but for his own good, to teach him and make him a better person. Based on the definition of patriotism above, we could extend all of these traits to a country too. In WWII Hasegawa Teru fought on the Chinese side against the Japanese Imperial Army. They called her a traitor, but in her mind her decision to fight on the Chinese side stemmed from her Japanese patriotism. Since her country was wrong, she felt that by fighting against her own country's imperialism, she would be protecting her country from itself. Patriotism can be a complex thing.

If you mean interpersonal, I fully agree. That can be achieved through freer trade, freer movement of labour, more visa exemptions, and more transparent borders overall. It could also be achieved through more tax deductions to charities (or, alternatively, tax reductions). This might increase access to funds on the part of various organizations like UNICEF. If, however, you mean a more impersonal role through big government, then no thanks. A stand on nothing is not necessarilya bad thing if it means smaller government. Definitely. Interprovincial trade barriers make Canada a laughing stock on the international stage. Not only trade barriers, but barriers to movemen of labour too. Did you know that it's easier for certain professionals in Europe to find work across their national borders than if is for some Canadian nurses to cross our provincial boundaries to find work? It's shameful! In what sense? To fulfil our UN mandates? I fully agree. But no more than that. We have big enough government as it is. Now boycotting UN conferences is not a good idea. Obama has obviously already forgotten Reagan's and Thatcher's gaffe. They'd withdrawn their membership from UNESCO ecause they didn't like the direction UNESCO was moving in. Needless to say, UNESCO saw it as a new-found freedom, forcing both the UK and the US to rejoin just to regain the little control they had before, figuring that little control was better than none at all. Are we about to repeat the same mistake?

I don't agree with Quebec's Bill 101 fundamentally (i.e. I believe that there are more just means of achieving its alleged objectives). Having said that, however, I do believe that short of a radical restructuring of our language laws overall, Bill 101 is necessary to counterbalance the hegemonic effects of English. In fact it's thanks to Bill 101 that French-speaking Quebecers today are finding it easier than before to find work in Montreal. In the 60s unless you knew English Montreal's job market was pretty much off limits.

If recognized by a ministry of education, they could. And looking at Bahasa Indonesia, at least one has.