Machjo

In one sense, Russell Williams was the model citizen (underwear-thefts, rapes, and murders aside, he was white and spoke English, making him more Canadian as a an immigrant than any descendent of a pre-Confederation Chinese 'coolie' could ever be.

Also, this trilingual old-stock Canadian would like to apologise to other old-stock Canadians for having studied Chinese. Furthermore, I'd like to apologise to my fellow old-stock Canadians for having married a Chinese. Now it might make some feel good to know that she probably passes both the Bazi nose test (she has a relatively short nose) and the old South African hair test (I doubt a pencil would stay in her hair for long given how straight it is.

I have a solution: Impose a language tax on all Canadians to cover Federal translation costs but then exempt any person who knows both official language well any couple that share both official languages and at least one common language between them. That way, even if one member of the couple speak neither official language well, at least we know he has access to a free interpreter. This would effectively make it a user-pay tax. Also, given that it's English and French Canadians who benefit the most from the CBC, make it opt-in for anyone who doesn't want it. As for everyone else, their ignorance of both official languages is the reason we pay so much in taxes to translate everything.

The topic's in the title.

Not if your contract protects you. If you sign a contract written in language X and the contract states nothing about the contractor's linguistic policy, then the contractor ought to have an obligation to serve you in the language in which the contract was signed. If this is not the law presently, then the law ought to be updated to reflect that. If I buy a condo and I sign a purchase agreement written in English and the agreement does not state the strata council's linguistic policy, then it is reasonable for me to assume that if I was allowed to sign the agreement in English, that unless a linguistic policy in the contract states otherwise, I am to be served in English. To be fair to all though, this should apply to any language and not English specifically since it shouldn't be about keeping English-speakers in blissful monolingual ignorance of the world, but rather about protected reasonably assumed Contractual obligations.

Now of course an English-speaking Mohawk can try to start a business on the reserve where Bill 101 won't apply, but then he gets slammed by the Indian Act (a curse and a blessing due to its restrictions and protections).

Federally regulated private sector industries must conform to official bilingualism too, meaning again that head-office staff will often need to be bilingual in English and French. Once we remove Quebec, the Federal Government, and Federally regulated industries, this still leaves indigenous Canadians with access to many jobs in principle, just fewer than for English and French Canadians. But once we factor in lack of education funding on reserves even without taking into account that many must learn English or French as a second language, this limits their access to employment even more. The combined impact should be obvious. First, they must overcome educational underfunding, and then either limit themselves to the non-Federally regulated private sector outside Quebec or at least limit themselves to lower-level jobs within those sectors or learn English or French as a third language to access those jobs. English and French Canadians need learn French or English as a second language to access these same Federal jobs, and need nor even learn a second language at all to access the rest. This puts them at a significant advantage over their indigenous counterparts in both education and work.

Education can give some the confidence to move to the city knowing they won't end up sleeping in the streets. Beyond that though, Government has to change the laws to make the job market more accessible to indigenous peoples. For example, does does Bill 101 help let's say a bilingual mohawk-English speaker rise up the corporate ladder in Quebec when the position requires French to fulfil the legal requirements of Bill 101? The Official Languages Act, though not as draconian, has a similar effect. For example, all other qualifications being equal, who has the advantage in obtaining Federal employment (or at least in working his way up the Federal management ladder) in BC between a bilingual English-French speaker and a bilingual English-Sencoten speaker? Quebec has proposed in the past that Federal institutions in Quebec should operate only in French. Not only would this save the Federal Government money, but could presumably make Federal employment in Quebec more accessible to indigenous Quebecers who don't know English. Instead of opposing this, the Federal Government should have proposed applying the principle of official monolingualism nation-wide, French in Quebec and the French parts of New Brunswick, and English everywhere else. It would save much money in language training and make Federal employment and upward mobility more accessible to indigenous Canadians who don't know both official languages. The only ones who benefit from official bilingualism are Anglo-French bilinguals.

Wilfrid Laurier: French Roman Catholic. Fits right into the politically correct English or French, Protestant or Roman Catholic range I mentioned above. John Thompson: Irish Catholic. Okay, you got me on the national front. Irish is neither English nor French, nor even British in the UK sense, but still from a nation in the British Isles.

By what term would you identify the belief that 'we' English and French Canadians rule the roost and that 'everyone else' are mete guests if not intruders who ought to kowtow to 'us?'

Don't shoot the messenger. I never said I agree with the popular prioritization of Canadian values. I'm just saying what I believe them to be at present.

We definitely have Canadian values, possibly the first among them being Anglo-French nationalism,followed by money, followed by human rights.

The corporation's can exploit people only to the degree that the laws allow them to. For that, the responsibility falls in the Government's lap. The Government, not corporations, decides education, immigration, and other such policies. Corporation's are circumscribed within those policies that the Government decides.

In fact, if we read the history books, English, French, and Indigenous Canadians working in the fur trade generally developed close friendships with one another.

The corporations? As for the Indian Act and the residential school system, it was a mostly Anglo-French government and the Roman Catholic, Anglican, United, and Presbiterian Churches. As for the Chinese Exclusion Act and the Gradual Civilization Act, that was a mostly Anglo-French Federal Government. As for most other laws, it was the Federal or Provincial Governments. Where do corporation's fit into this? In fact, the Hudson's Bay Company hired many indigenous Canadians!

Even among the family class, many are self-supporting. Often all they are missing is the language skills, but they have the education, competence, and money to support themselves otherwise. In such cases they can obtain permanent-residency but not citizenship. This means that they pay taxes but don't get to vote, taxation without representation, some people's highest ideal.

Most Ojibwe do not live in those territories. Indigenous Quebecers are subject to Bill 101 off-reserve. Indigenous Canadians are subject to the Official Languages Act off-reserve, which can affect their access to Federal employment. Burnaby is presently testing the truth of your assertion too. We'll see how that turns out.

But the question then is who is 'we.' We say we want indigenous peoples to live under the same laws we do, forgetting that the laws themselves are heavily slanted in our favour. Most indigenous Canadians want to abandon the Indian Act in Principle, but defend it in practice as a counterbalance to various laws (including parts of the Indian Act itself) that hurt them since parts of the Indian Act protect them.

But what do we do when the rules themselves are slanted in our favour.? You say everyone can live as they wish in Canada. Would you support Ojibwe businesses off-reserve following the example of the English and posting ads, practicing medicine, and holding strata meetings only in their own language if they wish? Judging by the reaction to the Chinese community in BC, I get the impression that most English Canadians do not want regulatory legal non-distinction, but rather rules and laws that distinguish in their favour.

Would that include holding strata council meetings, posting advertisements, and practicing medicine in their language like we do in ours, or will 'they' be expected to live under 'our' laws? Judging from the commotion in BC, I doubt it.

So if I understand, we should force the Ojibwe into our 'capitalist' cities, but if ever they decide to hold strata council meetings in Ojibwe, the government should immediately intervene by imposing English on those meetings, reminding them that they are not equal to the English before the law, and that the capitalist free market does not apply to the English whose language the law, taxes, and public schools must promote. It applies only to Ojibwe after its speakers have learnt English, paid their taxes to promote English, and budgeted for interpreters to cater to the English. And then when the Ojibwe ask for funding to develop their language, we should tell those lazy Indians that while they must learn English and dupport the English, they must support their language on their own too. And if they obtain lower grades in English class because they are learning it as a second or foreign language, then they'll just have to study harder while the English rejoice in their hard-earned monolingualism on the beach. We should make sure that they understand that they will never have legal equality, that the law will always be on the side of the English.

Simple solution: a common labour market. Some have proposed that for Canada, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand. I would extend it even beyond that. The advantage is that it gives them the right only to work in Canada. That way we can judge based on the person's tax contribution after the first five years whether to give him citizenship. I would extend it beyond just 'white' countries though. If Russell Williams could immigrate to Canada (though granted he was a model taxpaying English-speaker until he'd started killing people), then certainly just not knowing English well is a minor consideration. I'd prefer non-English-speaking entrepreneurs of moral character over English-speaking serial killers in the highest ranks of the military if you know what I mean.

Are you saying that non-whites consume no goods or services in the Canadian economy, that workers and businesses depend on an exclusively white clientele?

What a stereotyped view of the Chinese. I'very seen whites spit on the street and pick their noses in public. I know Chinese who could teach some whites a thing or two about etiquette. I know plenty of law abiding Chinese. Meanwhile ex-Col. Russell Williams comes to mind. Sorry, bad example. He'd immigrated from England. Oops. I think I just proved your point on immigration.

On the other hand, some immigrants speak no English but have much entrepreneurial experience, still know multiple languages (but just not English) and know how to network within their linguistic community. Add to that that some of them might even end up marrying whites who speak their languages (an increasing occurrence due to free-trade, especially in entrepreneurial circles). Your experience is obviously limited to wage-earners who depend on employers. If that community is large enough, they might find themselves gainfully employed in no time flat.