Machjo

Given that immigrants (be they tourists, entrepreneurs, permanent residents or any other kind of immigrant) also use taxi and security services, whom would these drivers and guards serve? If you cut all immigration, demand for drivers and guards would plumet. You seem to have a vision of Canada comparable to British India where everyone else just serves the white man when in fact many white men serve the non-white community too. Consider that much of North America's atta flour to bake Indian nan bread is produced in Canada. I would guess that many of the farmere growing the wheat to produce that flour are white, while many of those buying that flour are East Indian. Send all East Indians to India, and many white farmers would lose their jobs. I've seen many white taxi drivers and white security guards. If you kill all non-whites, you kill much of the white population's client base.

Soory, technical glitch. It has nothing to do with feeling guilty, but rather to do with not perpetuating past wrongs. We continue to perpetuate injustice to this day.

Didn't our ancestors of not even 200 years ago read the Sermon on the Mount of centuries earlier? Even by the standards of centuries before, the residential school system and other forms of Canadian colonialism were tyranous. Unless you're saying that the Gospel had already become a dead book by then?

Didn't our ancestors of not even 200 years ago read the Sermon on the Mount of centuries earlier? Even by the standards of centuries before, the residential school system and other forms of Canadian colonialism were tyranous. Unless you're saying that the Gospel had already become a dead book by then?

Didn't our ancestors of not even 200 years ago read the Sermon on the Mount of centuries earlier? Even by the standards of centuries before, the residential school system and other forms of Canadian colonialism were tyranous. Unless you're saying that the Gospel had already become a dead book by then?

Certainly if the law requires the contract to be in English, and the board did not intend to serve the plaintiffs in English, then it should have specified its linguistic policy in its contracts. By not doing so, it committed to serving them in English, and of course they can't change the agreement retroactively without the purchasers' consent, which means that the board, though past negligence, should now be obligated to serve the owners in English.

My argument is a Contractual one, yours seems to be based on a form of nationalism.

In a sense. I think the plaintiffs should be served in English because the contracts they signed were in English and did not specify any official linguistic policy. If I understand you correctly, you believe they should be served in English just because it's the de facto language of BC government administration. We agree the board should serve the plaintiffs in English, but for different reasons.

Why would one choose to live in Kuujjuak? Let the market decide.

If we convert it into a consumers' co-op, then every member would get to elect the board of directors to make that decision in a democratic manner according to the will of the majority. Should the Government believe that rural populations need more help, then it could just lower the rural tax rate.

I say privatize Canada Post. If we fear the formation of a natural monopoly, then maybe convert it into a cunsumers' co-op.

No. We should have more say in how our money is spent. You could give to the United Way if you want to. My condolences if you depend on that money and can't compete with foreign workers.

My argument would have been as follows: The board should be obligated to provide service in any language as defined in the language policy presented in the contract any buyer signed or, in the absence of such, in the language in which the contract was presented. This would mean that unless the language policy defined on the contract specified that the board would provide service in French or, in the absence of any linguistic policy in the contract, that the buyer had signed a French version of the contract, that the board ought to have no obligation to serve him in French. In this case, since I presume that the plaintiffs in question had signed their purchase agreements in English and that the documents they signed specified no linguistic policy, the board should therefore be contractually required to serve the plaintiffs in English. Of course if I'm wrong and the purchase agreements that they'd signed specified that the board would serve them in Chinese, or that they'd signed a Chinese-only agreement, then the board should have no such obligation. That said, that's just me. I could imagine many French Canadians insisting on their right to be served a 7-Up in French on an international Air Canada flight even if it forces Air Canada to hire a French-speaker over an ASL speaker.

Another consistency I see is that you support more government interference in language policy in favour of English-Canadian nationalism, Whereas I support language policy applying only to the language of government administration and second-language learning in an international auxiliary language. Again, the English-Canadian nationalism on your part and the universalism on mine likely inform many of of our ideas, which might explain the irreconcilable differences on so many points.

This is perhaps a fundamental difference between us: a radically different view of the welfare state.Whereas you support what I shall refer to here as a nationalist welfare state (i.e. one that helps only nationals), I support a universal safety net. As an example, supposing we all paid a 20% income tax that was 100% charity-decuctible at a 1:1 ratio, and we were free to give to the charity of our choice (which could even include UNICEF), we would shift from a system guaranteeing a right to social welfare for the Canadian-born to one of an obligation on Canadian residents to help your fellow-man. As a result, there would be no guarantee that welfare services would be any better in Canada than elsewhere, and so no incentive for the poor to come to Canada. In some respects, this shows that we are both very consistent. Just as you support government deciding who enters Canada, you also support the government deciding how welfare dollars are spent. You are also consistent in that you want to keep immigration out for ethnic reasons and also want the government to control welfare likewise to ensure the Canadian-born benefit from it. I'm consistent in that just as I support open immigration, I also support allowing taxpayers to direct welfare dollars domestically or internationally as they prefer without discrimination on the basis,of nationality. My guess is that we will likely disagree on many other points too, your beliefs being founded on English-Canadian nationalism, mine on universalism.

To say government should exercise its powers in immigration policy just because it can is the same as saying it should raise taxes just because it can. But when the intent is to promote Aryan policy, that's even worse.

And government controls taxes too. To lower taxes involves permissive Ness (permitting people to keep their money), while raising taxes involve action (taking the money). Lowering taxes involves reducing government involvement while raising taxes increases involvement. We can draw the same parallel with immigration. To allow immigration is a passive policy of less state interference. To restrict immigration is an active policy of prohibition. So supporting immigration is supporting a more hands-off, free-market approach, Whereas opposing immigration is to support greater state interference in the free market, especially in international tourism, trade, and education, and possibly marriage too, the ultimate in state interference.

But the glow of migrants has nothing to do with government actions. On the contrary, it had to do with lack of government action (i.e. allowing the free movement of people). What you are proposing is government action because you believe English dominance can't survive without it. I say if it can't survive without it, then let's let the market decide what language is truly the most useful. Most bureaucrats who enforce the laws have never worked in the private sector.

Also, how is it that you say public once sufficed to ensure the dominance of English but now we need the Chinese Exclusion Act?

Maybe we could prohibit intermarriage too unless both partners share English as a common language, just to be sure, eh. While we'really at it, we could sterilize women who don't know English. Perhaps we could treat raising a child in a language other than English as child abuse and confiscate the children to put them in English-speaking foster homes. Heck, we could do many things to ensure the dominance of English. Now the question is, how far do you propose we move in that direction?

You're free to boycott those businesses that don't serve you in your language. But if they still thrive, why cry to the government for their success? Rememver, businesses also must consider international tourists, international students, the export market, etc. If the locals ate all beoke, then businesses will gravitate towards the money. Who are we to impose unnecessary translation costs to serve those who won't buy much of their product anyway. The world is much smaller today.

Government language policy has no business in the private sector. Of course if a private business can choose the official language if its choice, Government administration should have the same right to adopt its official language of Government administration. And of course businesses will have to interact with the government in the government's language. Beyond that, the Government has no business telling business what tool to use. Business will naturally use the most efficient tool in its box. Do you not trust the laws of supply and demand?

At least we agree that the English language spread not by some happy accident of the free market but by the English wielding the sword, whether that sword manifested itself through the muskets of British soldiers or through the laws and constitution of the Canadian state. It would seem that where we disagree is on the morality of wielding that sword. We might just have to agree to disagree on that point.

Given that even many English, French, Chinese, etc. learnt Wawa in the 1800's (which by the way few ever spoke as a mother tongue even among indigenous peoples), it would seem it had more usefulness than English. As English growing, yes the regular school sysyem helped, but that alone would not have sufficed without being accompanied by the Indian Act and the residential school system, the Chinese Exclusion Act and the head tax, discriminatory immigration policy in favour of British or at least European immigration, etc. Again, it was not due to the free market but a calculated wielding of governmental power by the English in collusion with the French (which continues to this day).

We used to: the Chinese Exclusion Act. Maybe you could write to your MP proposing that Canada re-introduces it.