Machjo

Limiting ourselves to linguistic policy, Indonesia is a democratic republic and has adopted one official language in spite of harboring no majority mother-tongue community. As for East Timor: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Timorese_independence_referendum,_1999 Seems democratic enough to me. Given a choice between autonomy and independence, the people of East Timor voted for independence. Clearly a minority opposed this and so deadly violence broke out. The will of the majority was respected though and independence was established. Interestingly enough, it was Indonesia that wanted to push East Timor out because it was too expensive to subsidize but still had the courtesy to give them the choice to remain as a special autonomous region should they have wished to do so. Indonesia had even called on the UN to administer the referendum to ensure the complete trustworthiness of the results.

As strange as it might sound, a country harboring no majority linguistic community is likely to be somewhat more cohesive than one harboring such a community. Let's take Indonesia as an example. With over 100 linguistic communities and its most dominant community (the Malay) representing only about 40% of the population, the majority making up the other linguistic groups opted for Bahasa Indonesia (a language developed from a former regional pidgin language and spoken by no more than 10% of the population as a mother tongue, mostly in mixed families and in port cities like Jakarta, but spoken by over 99% of Indonesia's population as an auxiliary language) as Indonesia's common auxiliary language. Ironically enough, the lack of sufficient diversity in Canada is what prevents English and French Canadians from integrating into a common linguistic community or even showing any interest in promoting aNY kindication of linguistic cohesion between them. The moment English and French Canadians can no longer just live monolingually each in their own enclave but must learn a second language en masse, they will then start to support some kind of international auxiliary language that would be easy enough for all to learn. All Canadians would benefit from the freedom to send their children to school in the language of their choice while ensuring that they all learn Canada's common second language. Ironically enough, such diversity would promote a common language more effectively than less diversity ever can. Majorities are seldom willing to promote justice if it hurts their interests, being more interested in each sticking to their own enclave; but when everyone is a minority and no one can promote their own ethnic interests, then all will promote justice and unity in diversity, and so finally a common language, literature, and culture, and consequently more cohesion. So if we want to promote unity, we must promote diversity. Two dominant linguistic communities will never give us a common language, literature, and culture. Many linguistic communities would forcefully thrust precisely that onto us.

In present Canadian politics, English, French, Protestant and Roman Catholic are all politically correct. The farther the candidate strays from these standards (British is generally politically correct too), the less politically correct he becomes, a US immigrant Deaf female mixed-race Ojibwe-Chinese Muslim being close to the least politically correct imaginable.

To put it another way, supposing that we'd had partisan plurality-at-large voting over the last many decades, every majority government would have simply had an even larger majority, and the party with the most seats in minority governments would have had even more seats. Plurality-at-large is even less pro-rep than FPTP! This why plurality-at-large voting is the worst system (FPTP the second-worst) in a partisan environment, yet ideal in a non-partisan one so as to ensure in the absence of parties and vote whipping that we don't end up with gridlock.

Plurality-at-large voting actually favour the plurality, which usually tends to be moderate. In that sense, the system I am proposing would discourage extreme ideologies even more so than FPTP would.

The Indians not only let them but even helped them! You only need to read the Great Law of Peace to understand why they did that. That is how their religions taught them to behave and they had faith in our decency too.What does your religion teach you?

I have Ojibwa friends and we have discussed similar subjects. Surprisingly, they don't regret having helped the first European migrants to Canada because that is what their religions taught them to do. You only need to read the story of the Great Peacemaker and Hiawatha to see that. In my conversations with them, I found that their greatest disappointment was that our ancestors did not live up to the teachings of their own Christian Faith! Of course I can't speak for indigenous Canadians and can only relay what some Ojibwe friends of mine have told me, but it would seem to me that we can either continue to disappoint by hypocriticaly not living up to our professed beliefs, or we can show them that we do now live up to our beliefs. The choice is ours to make. If our professed religions mean anything, then let's live up to their standards.

I trace my origins right back to New France. In my mind, the immigrant who 'just got off the boat' is my equal, or at least that is what my religion teaches me. However, if you want to play the seniority card, then that probably makes you more of an immigrant than I am, so who the hell are you to come to Canada to tell me to get out. With an attitude like that, maybe it's time you went back to Britain and leave us earlier arrivals alone. As for how immigration impacts indigenous people's. Strangely enough, non-English and non-French immigration probably benefits indigenous peoples in that part of the problem is that English and French Canadians are presently colluding to maintain their majority for the purpose of forcefully assimilating indigenous Canadians. Once we form a minority, then our language laws will rapidly liberalize as everyone else including indigenous Canadians will want to limit the power of the English and the French to force themselves on them.

Nunavut's system is modern while retaining traditional values like consensus over confrontational models. Modernization should not mean abandoning principles. The only way the Westminster system has modernized has been in the worst way possible: cutthroat hyperpartisanship.

The members would elect their cabinet, as they do in Nunavut. Also, I don't buy into the idea that newer is always better. Partisan politics, though relatively new, merely divides society. One might perceive Numavut's sysyem as too old fashioned, but there is something to be said for a less confrontational and more consensus-based system that represents Canada as not as divided among warring camps but rather as united.

Yes, one problem is that a person who does not want the job ends up being elected. Then it starts to look like jury duty. Should the person have a valid reason to turn the offer down, then we just go to the next one who'd won the most votes. As for it being high jacked by political parties, that would be next to impossible. If anything, parties can hijack a closed ballot far more effectively through strategic voting from among those on the ballot. In an open ballot, whoever wins the plurality among the electorate gets the seat. With that, no one could know who will win ahead of time, and so strategic voting becomes impossible. Remember, most Canadians don't belong to a political party and aren't that partisan. The very concepts of majority and minority Government don't exist in a non-partisan system. Plus, plurality-at-large voting would encourage the election of like-minded MPs.

An open ballot could solve the first problem. Since it would be an open ballot allowing voters to write in the names of any eligible voter they wish to elect, no one would actually need to run a campaign anymore. A person could be elected based on what people know of gim. The plurality wins. As for the second point, given that plurality-at-large voting tends to promote a landslide majority (even more so than in a FPTP system) in a partisan environment, it's therefore reasonable to conclude that it will tend to lead to more like-minded MP's being elected according to the will of the plurality. This would tend to promote cohesion even in the absence of a political party.

Though FPTP is a terrible system in a partisan environment as is now the case, it does have advantages in a non-partisan environment. The question then becomes, do we remove the partisanship so FPTP can work better or do we adapt the system to the present partisan reality. My first choice would be to keep FPTP (or adopt plurality-at-large voting) while having all candidates run as independents in a non-partisan system. My second choice, should we refuse to abandon our present partisan system, would be a party-list as the best way to manage such a system. That said, I agree that as long as candidates run for parties, FPTP is one of the worse systems we can have which, let's be honest, was designed to function in a non-partisan environment.

My meaning was that if he signed the purchase agreement in English and the agreement made no mention of any linguistic policy, then he could reasonably assume that the corporation will accommodate him in written or spoken English in all activities he can attend.But again, not because if what the Government's official language is, but only because he'd signed the purchase agreement in English with the agreement saying nothing about any other linguistic policy, thus giving him a legitimate reason to assume that the corporation would offer English for all if its activities. That said, the corporation should be free to offer the contract in the language of its choice, just that it must understand that it can't try to mislead people by offering an agreement to be signed in English with no other mention of linguistic policy written in the contract and then not offer service in English. If it dI'd bot intend to offer English service, it should either not have offered agreements typed in English to sign or at least inscribe a clear linguistic policy into the contract so as to avoid any misunderstanding.

I don't want to deprive anyone of anything, but to legislate laws excessively restricting the freedom of out-of-towners when the Constitution clearly guarantees free of movement is problematic. Yes they have the right to communicate with the Government in their language, but will just have to adapt to a changing free market like the rest of us.

I seem to remember a post of mine mentioning just this, that many use the word 'Canadian' as a synonym or code word for 'English-Canadian,' 'French-Canadian,' or 'Anglo-French Canadian.' Your quote here is a perfect example of that since it does not make sense unless we understand the word 'Canadian' in that way. According to a pure understanding of the word, a Chinese Canadian is just as Canadian as an English-Canadian, but using it as a code word, suddenly anything but English-Canadian isn't Canadian. I've been increasingly Chinese-Canadian for years now, but don't feel any less Canadian for speaking Chinese. If anything, my multilingual ism should make me more Canadian for my ability to ore easily make friends with Canadians you couldn't even communicate with: your own compatriots.

Educated, law-abiding, pays her taxes.What more do we want?

You only need to read the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to see that official bilingualism applies to Federal and New Brunswick Government institutions and the public school system. It does not apply to private businesses. Never mind immigrants. It would be nice if the Canadian-born read their Constitution, or at least the Charter. Secondly, not all Canadian Chinese are immigrants. Granted those born and raised in Canada will know an official language, but will still reserve the freedom to use the language of their choice in the private sector.

I feel no white guilt at all, probaby because I also oppose white privilege, no special legal advantage for this or that linguistic community beyond what is necessary.

You'remind probably correct, but I prefer to stick to what I know best so I can back it up when challenged. I've seen many Arab businesses in Ottawa, but I can't say that I have many very close Arab friends. Many Persians I know are in educated professions (physician, lawyer, accountant, professor), though I've met Persian entrepreneurs too. Though most of the Chinese a I know are of the entrepreneurial class, I am aware and know of some lawyers, physicians, etc. there too.

Given the disagreement on electoral reform, some like me preferring open non-partisan plurality-at-large voting (which is even less proportional than first past the post), some perhaps preferring a party-list system at the opposite extreme, with some preferring the present first past the post sysstem, single transferable ballot, or other in-between solutions, could we not just have two Houses of Parliament each elected according to extreme opposite systems, with no law passing without the support of both houses? As an example, imagine that one House is elected according to open non-partisan plurality-at-large voting, and that the other is elected according to a party list. Imagine too that voters can choose between two non-partisan plurality-at-large ballots, two party-list ballots, or one of each. Since no law would pass without being adopted by both houses anyway, one's votes not lost whichever he chooses. What I mean by open is that one could write the name of any eligibal voter on the ballot. As for non-partisan, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-partisan_democracy And plurality-at-large, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality-at-large_voting The fact that the two Houses would be elected according to two diametrically opposite systems would also mean that they would tend to comprise radically different memberships. The first would comprise less partisan members who would not necessarily have even run for office since they would have been elected on an open ballot. Also, the fact that they would have been elected through plurality-at-large voting would tend to lead to them being mostly like-minded and representing the plurality of voters. The second House would comprise mostly partisans who would have actively run for office and who would have been chosen by their respective parties. It would also tend to comprise different groups in opposition to one another and representing various disparate segments of society. At least this way those looking for a less partisan House would get that, and those looking for a more partisan House would get their wish too. A plurality-at-large ballot could probably allow one to vote for at least nine candidates easily, with each large electoral district having at least nine MP s representing it. The party-list system could still have one MP representing one small electoral district as is,presently the case. So while the MP's of one House would share large districts, those of the other would each represent their own small individual ridings.

In Ottawa likewise I have generally found the Chinese to be very entrepreneurial.

I don't know. I have not been to BC outside of the airport for many years. To be fair, I'd only spent a few days in Scarborough, but from that observation, I could see a prosperous Chinese-speaking economy. Nearly all of the shops had Chinese signs and the staff spoke Chinese nearly everywhere I went (bearing in mind my Chinese friends chose the restaurants). But even that gave me a good idea of how prosperous it was.

That's impressive considering that they don't even benefit from the Official Languages Act to reserve jobs for members of their community like it does for the English and the French.

No what? Assimilation policies never happened in Canada's history?