Machjo

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/british-columbia/richmond-condo-human-rights-language-strata-mandarin-english-chinese-1.3378013 Of course I reject Andreas Kargut and Harry Grey's arguments. First, Harry Grey's appeal to Chinese not belonging to Canada's official languages applies only to Government administration and public education and not to the private sector. Secondly, official bilingualism itself is a relic of the residential school era based on what the B&B Commission termed 'the two founding races' apart from 'the other ethnic groups' to the explicit exclusion of 'the Indians and the Eskimos' in its Book I, General Introduction, Paragraph 21. Thirdly, his argument that Richmond isn't Beijing or Taiwan doesn't hold water as an argument for providing English translation when we consider that Richmond isn't England either. The logic of Andreas Kargut's argument that Chinese-only meetings exclude him can just as easily be summed up as "A meeting held in language X excludes those who do not know language X." That being said, I could agree with a law requiring a strata property to hold meetings in the language of its contracts unless the contracts specify otherwise. I'm assuming these gentlemen had signed their contracts in English with their contracts never defining the strata property's language policy, and so the meetings that are not held in English should include English interpretation. If the strata property council intended for the meetings to be held monolingually in Chinese, it should have provided Chinese contracts only or at least specify the property's language policy in the contract. This has nothing to do with official bilingualism, Beijing, or Taiwan though, and everything to do with the contract.

My original proposal included giving the language passpprt the value of a work visa. The idea was to counterbalance the fact that if Canada accepted only Canadian passports and three language passports, that the tourism industry could suffer. That said, the original proposal had also proposed that this would apply only to those born five years after the new law is passed, which means that it would be implemented gradually so as to give the travel industry time to adapt. I'd also proposed an Esperanto passport in the mix to ensure at least one language passport that would be easy to obtain so as to mitigate the damage to the travel industry even more while still imposing minimal costs to Canada's translation and interpretation services. Based on responses, I then proposed that we abandon the work visa value of such passports. Then the discussion shifted to how it would decimate Canadian immigration and tourism. So then I proposed acc epping foreign national passports only in times of recession so as to allow Canada to control inflation in times of economic growth by reverting back to accepting only those four passports at those times. In that way it would be integrated into Canada's inflation policy.

Another possibility would be to accept passports other than Canadian or the three language passports only during recessions. This would help to control inflation in periods of economic growth.

But the other 5% is probably still in the millions at least.

You are aware aren't you that a Hong Kong resident can't apply for refugee status in Canada? Have you ever been to Hong Kong. Unlike on the mainland, Hong Kong's human rights are very well protected. In any event, your proposal is untenable because it would throw open the doors wide to almost anyone in the world who wanted to come here and work, most of whom would then want to either stay, or take the money they had earned back home. Like I said. Instead of just attacking an idea, why not propose improvements. Supposing that we still applied the present visa rules, this would mean that it would then be more difficult to come to Canada due to the newly imposed language requirements on top of the present visa rules.

Wouldn't this policy bring in fewer (or at least fewer of those who don't speak one of three languages), not more? As for your last qurstion, I'd expect Canada to gain economic efficiency from this. I can only imagine how much the CBSA, the IRB, and Federal courts spends on translation and interpretation for example, and how much more the police, hospitals, 911 lines, etc. Etc. Etc. Also spend on translation and interpretation services at taxpayer expense.

Also, high fences make good neighbours. If the only tourists to Canada are those who know one of three languages with few exceptions, Canadians are less likely to run into frustrating language barriers that likely only feed xenophobia. This could also apply to Canadians running into such language barriers abroad should foreign states reciprocate against Canada.

It would be foolish to assume that other countries would not retaliate.

Actually, I just thought of something else on the tourist front. If Canada ever does adopt a language-passport policy, we can imagine other countries reciprocating. For example. the USA and the UK might decide to no longer accept Canadian passports but instead allow Canadians to apply for an English-language passport and, recognizing that English is difficult to learn and so as to minimize the impact on its tourism industry from Quebec tourists, maybe an Esperanto Passport or a language passport in some other comparatively easy language to learn. This would likely keep many Quebecers in Canada and so boost the Canadian tourism industry somewhat. Supposing France likewise reciprocated by refusing to accept Canadian passports and introduced a French-Language passport intead, again alongside an Esperanto Passport or a passport in an equally easy language to learn so as to minimize the impact on its tourism industry, this too could keep many Canadians in Canada so as to boost the Canadian tourism industry.

I'll just say this. If you won't allow them to stay, then don't allow them to come. They're human and have a right not to be played around with false hopes. I'd even support a law guaranteeing people the right to stay in Canada. That would make Canada think twice about allowing them in in the first place.

First off, as the situation is now, a Hong Kong resident can come to visit Canada for six months at a time without a visa. So I don't know where you get the two months from. Plus, given that my fiancée, as trilingual and educated as she is, doesn't know any of the three languages that I'd proposed, how would that proposal help her? Bear in mind that I would not support it retroactively but only to those who are born after the new law is passed.

Good point. I did say in the OP that it was a braonstorm. It's always easier to criticize an idea than to offer suggestions for improvement. So how about we abandon the work visa value of these passports. They would serve like a normal passport, the only difference beine that unlike most passports. You'd now have to meet linguistic, age, nedical, or refugee requirements to get it, so not as easy to obtain as a regular national passport. Beyond that, make it that they'd still need visas like they do now.

True, but it's the passport holder or his government that would pay, so why would it concern us? An alternative possibility would be to grant a five year passport for those who show a much higher degree of competence in the language (since then we know it will take longer for his language knowledge to degrade. We could even offer a ten year passport to those who demonstrate a mastery of the language, again recognizing that his knowledge of the language cam degrade only so quickly. Completely different proposals. Mine does not eliminate the right to interpretation to the deaf or those who could not learn the language and certain exemptions. All it does is eliminate the opportunity to come to Canada without appropriate language knowledge with some exceptions. Yours allows everyone in like now but would then refuse service. Do you want Canada to be a consumer or seller of such services. Right now Canada is a major consumer of translation and interpretation services. My proposal would bit prevent multilingual to come to Canada, thus allowing us to sell the service. It would prevent monolinguals from coming, thus reducing our need for the service. Yes, it's a big industry. And because it's big, we want to be the sellers, not the buyers.

No it wouldn't because she knows none of these three languages. So what would have happened in the hypothetical scenario that this policy were in place before she came to Canada? A few possibilities: 1. I would never have met her, or 2. She would have learnt one of the three languages, obtain the appropriate passport, and then come and visit Canada. As it stands now, because of her entrepreneurial knowledge, she has already obtained a job offer in Scarborough and one in Ottawa, both to be well-renumerated. This does not preclude the alternative possibility of opening a restaurant. She will be getting her work visa in around a month after which she'l opt for one of the options now open to her. I do love her and am happy to have met her. I also agree that it's only fair that the government, having allowed us to meet on her tourist visa, should now allow her to work here. As strange as it might sound though, when I look beyond interpersonal relationships towards statecraft, if my policies were in place, she would never have been allowed to come here in the first place without learning at least an easy language, unless we'd met abroad which is not what happened. If my proposed policy were in place though, it could not have hurt either of us emotionally since we would likely have never met.

Add to that that should a language passport also double as a work visa, it could encourage more long-term tourists for example. It would also encourage marriage between Canadians and foreign nationals who know English, French, or at least Esperanto so as to keep Canada's language regime mabageable. The present system increases the likelihood of Canadian citizens who know a foreign language to meet, develop a relationship with, and marry foreign nationals who know none of these languages.

I disagree. Probably over 90% of translators, tourists, students, workers, and permanent residents in Canada speak English or French.It would barely dent the tourism industry while saving the police, hospitals, immigration, courts, emergency services etc. at least just as much on translation and interpretation.

The strategy I was thinking was as follows:1. Canada's official languages need no explanation. 2. Beyond that though, the present situation is such that if a foreign tourist is sick, charged with a crime (whether he is innocent or not), calls 911, etc., these various government institutions have to spend much money on translation and interpretation. I myself participated at a hearing in Montreal at which the judge asked if I would mind not using French so as to limit interpretation between English and Chinese only. Since I know much Chinese myself, I was surprised to notice some misinterpretations at the hearing, misinterpretation that the judge certainly did not notice unless she knew Chinese herself. Luckily they did not change the essentials, but they could have. Had I insisted to invoke my Charter right to French, it would have degenerated into a trilingual kangaroo court. Given the money and errors that multilingualism costs, it therefore makes sense to limit ourselves to few languages, and if we're going to do that, then at least include an easy one in the mix, and that's how Esperanto comes in. Those who have prejudices against Esperanto would still have the option of learning English or French instead if they have the necessary aptitude to learn them. Esperanto would just be an easy alternative for those who find English or French too difficult so as to not hurt the travel industry too much without leading to the interpretation and translation teams of today that the taxpayer must finance.

At present, true. However, what I'm proposing above would solve some problems: 1. Unlike most passports, it provides more linguistic information about the passport holder (what language he knows, if he might be deaf, etc.). 2. If Canada accepted only four different passports, it would make it easier for border guards to become more familiar with them and so make it less likely that they overlook a counterfeit passport. 3. Some compassionate exceptions aside, limiting the entry if foreign nationals to Canada to three linguistic communities (two official and one easy) would reduce translation and interpretation costs at our airports, police stations, courts, prisons, hispitals, 911 services, etc. Etc. Etc. It would also make it more difficult to escape fines and such by pretending to not know the language when your passport says you do know it. 4. Making it more difficult for someone to enter Canada but easier to stay in Canada reduces the likelihood of marriage and other fraud, thus providing yet one more layer of protection to Canadian citizens. These are some of the advantages that I could see.

This is just an initial brainstorm (even I don't know how good or bad of an idea it is right now), but was wondering your thoughts on it: Canada proposes that the Commonwealth of Nations (aka the British Commonwealth) issue an English Language Passport through the passport offices of its member-states worldwide to anyone who: 1. Obtains a grade of 6.5 on an IELTS test or equivalent; 2. Is under the age of fifteen (in which case the passport expires on his fifteenth birthday, those under the age of fifteen being free to opt for option 1 above to avoid this problem if they wish); 3. Is over the age of seventy; 4. Is issued a note explaining the medical reason (e.g. profound deafness or severe dyslexia, disgraphia, etc.) for which he could not take the IELTS test; or 5. Is seeking refuge from an oppressive regime (Irán for example). The inside front cover of the passport would explain under which of the categories above the passport was issued. It would also include all of the same information as a standard passport including nationality, but would be valid for only two years at a time, the test having to be taken anew every two years or the age, medical condition, or refugee status being re-examined every two years to re-issue the visa. Canada would request that the member-states of the Organisation internationale de la francophonie establish a French Language Passport along the same rules as the English Language Passport above but for French. Canada would also invite the World Esperanto Association to issue an Esperanto Passport through visa offices that it would be authorized to establish and administer itself following the same rules as above but for Esperanto. Canada would recognize any of these three passports as being equivalent to an open work visa, and would require anyone who is born 5 years after this new law is passed to require either a Canadian passport or one of the language passports above to enter Canada for any reason even if only to transit. Given how easy Esperanto is to learn, there would be no reason to not be able to do this. From a security standpoint, it would ensure that, few exceptions aside (e.g. the young, the elderly, the handicapped, and refugees), everyone entering Canada on any passport other than a Canadian passport speaks one of three languages or at least has an explanation in the inside front cover of his passport as to why he does not know the language of his passport. This would save Canada's tourist, business, emergency, criminal, and other governmental and non-governmental services at least thousands a year in translation and interpretation services. As for the concern that it could harm Canada's tourism industry, though that is true, I believe that it would save Canada more money than it would cost it in tourism revenue, again because of how easy Esperanto would be to learn. To ensure respect for due process while still making it easy to remove persons with these passports from Canada, we could always respect due process but make it an offense for anyone without a Canadian passport to consume alcohol, fornication or commit adultery, gamble, etc. This way, even if we are not sure such a person was involved in a brawl but can prove that he consumed alcohol, that would be good enough to remove him from Canada. Likewise if we can't prove he engaged on prostitution but can prove that he engaged in sex with someone other than his wife. Likewise we know gamblers can get into trouble sometimes too, so anyone without a Canadian passport could be removed from Canada for buying a lottery ticket, etc. I'm not saying waste taxpayer resources to spy on every tourist, but merely that when they're found in a compromising situation, they could be removed for a legitimate reason for having committed a lessor offence that could be proved while still respecting the presumption of his innocence even for the lesser offense.

Yes and no. No law says a Prime Minister must be bilingual, how much less a party leader. The law aside though, many French Canadians would boycott any such party. Not only that, but many French Canadians within the party could chose to leave it for that reason.

I believe that most Canadians are more libéral-conservative at heart, but still expect a competent leader of a character that is compatible with theirs. On the economic front, the Conservatives had it on the bag. Had the Conservatives run a campaign that was even close in quality to the Liberal campaign, they would have won. I believe that that the Conservatives made three big mistakes: 1. On the economic front. Had the Conservatives focused on promising particular expenditure cuts and explained the rationale for these cuts in a knowledgeable manner, that could have won it some votes. 2. Link deregulation to social policy. Some who consistently vote left are conservatives at heart who simply falsely believe that the only way to help the most disadvantaged is to regulate the markets ever more. Strategic market deregulation targeted to benefit the poor could have changed some minds on the matter. For example, the Conservatives could have proposed that any business that serves its customers in a sign language or the local indigenous language would be completely exempted from all linguistic provisions from all Federal laws. This would be a way to deregulate language policy in such a way as to show a softer side to deregulation to socially compassionate conservatives. 3. Logical thought, consistency, and avoiding redundancy. When Harper argued that we should not allow women to wear the niqab because he would not force his daughter wear one, it probably made him seem mushy-brained in the eyes of many who properly analyzed that logic. Would this mean that if he doesn't force his daughter to wear cotton that he will therefore force all women to wear cotton at citizenship ceremonies? It just didn't make sense. The idea of taking away a woman's freedom to wear what she wants on the name of women's equality was also an oxymoron in the eyes of some, especially in the context of refusing to establish a commission to study the matter of murdered and missing aboriginal women. The 'Canadian values' argument also ran hollow in an electorate bombarded by the media concerning the horror of cultural genocide in the residential school system in recent years. If instead he had focused on legitimate concerns surrounding security he would have had a case except for the fact that the court had already agreed that she would have to show her face for identification purposes already. In short, because of the rationales surrounding it, the niqab debate was a philosophical landmine. We can see something similar with the Office o Religious Freedom which can criticize governments beyond Canada over which the Government has no power anyway but can't make recommendations concerning the one country the Government has the power to legislate in, thus making it not only redundant given the work the the UN High Commission for Human Rights but also relatively useless for the money spent 4. General character. Harper stripped his MPs of all freedom to vote their conscience, he focused more on mean-spirited attacks (e.g. I can imagine many Canadian international businessmen, diplomats, military servicemen stationed in Germany and elsewhere abroad, and other former ex-pats feeling enraged at Harper's insinuation that to live abroad makes one less than Canadian in his attacks on Ignatius for 'just visiting'), his constant focus on attacking his opponents personally rather than focus on explaining the rationale for his own policies to people. He could sometimes be outright arrogant and insulting of other world leaders and states, even allied ones. In short, he came across as a nacissistic bully. Dividing between Canadian and non-Canadian in immigration policy. Forgetting that international marriages have become more common than ever in Canada, sometimes even between 'Old Stock' Canadians who speak an unofficial language and foreign nationals. To attack immigrants was inevitably to attack the spouses and in-laws of immigrants, many of whom would be Old-stock themselves. I guess it boiled down to the fact that Harper would never force his daughter to marry a foreign national. I could go on, but I think I'ce made it clear enough that the Liberals did not win. The Conservatives lost.

Now if it's a matter not of whom I might be hoping for but rather who has a political chance, then definitely not Scott Reid. He'd probably present some good ideas which would turn the knuckle daggers in the party off.

CPC: Scott Reid. http://www.ottawasun.com/2015/10/20/reid-survives-tight-battle-in-lanark-frontenac-kingston NDP: Mulcair for now.

In Afghanistan, the Taliban did not give women a choice as to whether to cover their faces. Irán, that quasi-democratic oppressive republic with all of its human rights violations, at least lets women choose whether or not to cover their faces. Most Iranian women wear the headscarf (sinse the law still requires them to cover their hair), but in Irán's far south, some women choose to wear the niqab. If even an oppressive government like Irán's lets women choose whether or not to cover their faces, why can't Canada, a constitutional monarchy, give women the same freedom to choose?

Now if money laundering is an issue, then let's fight money londering. But again, let's not fight foreign money laundering while giving domestic money laundering a pass.