Machjo

You might be right. Perhaps the best way to promote Deaf, indigenous, and other language rights is through increased government spending alone without worrying about any kind of deregulation.

Zibi development seeks aboriginal construction workers - Ottawa - CBC News More proof that deregulation might be the key to promoting indigenous language rights. Zibi Construction is even promising that all of its signs will include Algonquin. It appears that Zibi Construction is doing more than any Government to include First Nations communities, and it's a private for-profit company. Imagine that!

The lack of an internationally accepted linguistic standard in packaging and labeling undermines economies of scale and increases overhead costs that must then be passed on to consumers due to companies having to create separate linguistic packaging for separate countries. Establishing a common agreed-on linguistic standard would allow some companies to be able to benefit from the economies of scale that could accrue from this, which it could in turn pass on to consumers. Accepting packaging and labeling in the indigenous language of the location in which it is packaged and labeled and Esperanto would be easy to manage. First off, it involves only two languages, any other language being optional. Secondly, because it involves the indigenous language of the company's location, the local authorities can confirm that the two languages the translation between these two languages is correct. Thirdly, Esperanto is easy to learn, so any government inspector could learn it in a relatively short time. This of course would not replace other options. Larger companies trying to reach a larger market might still want to create separate labeling for separate countries, and in that case, I don't see why Canada could not allow bilingual labeling in English and French and monolingual labeling in English or French so as to further reduce company overhead costs in Canada. As for legal matters, it's up to the customer to not buy something he can't read, as simple as that. Besides, why would that be a problem if, when an official language is not included on the packaging, an easy language is provided instead? Such deregulation would not only help the indigenous language but also reduce costs by giving companies more choice.

Not a single party except maybe the Libertarian Party supports cutting media funding at present. Cutting all public media funding would be ideal, but until that happens, shouldn't the minority have a say in how its media funding is spent so as to avoid a tyranny of the majority?

Why do we ignore no-to-low-cost strategies to promote reconciliation with Canada's indigenous peoples? With on-reserve schools being funded from $2,000 to $3,000 less per child than comparable off-reserve schools, many indigenous children speaking a mother tongue that is fundamentally different than the English and French languages of instruction of many schools, and the indigenous adult functional literacy rate in neither official language hovering at around 60% (about 10% more than the Canadian average, which should come as no surprise given the underfunding and the linguistic differences), there is no doubt that increasing funding for on-reserve education is a moral obligation, especially given the attempted cultural genocide that indigenous peoples have had to endure over a period of over a century. That said, while candidates are promising increased funding for indigenous education, it appears that they ignore no-to-low-cost strategies as if such strategies are mutually incompatible with the higher-cost ones that they are proposing, when in reality they could complement and enhance the higher-cost strategies. It would require very little imagination for those with an open mind to come up with such strategies. No local candidate appears to have seriously explored what some linguists refer to as "the paradoxical advantages of official monolingualism." For example, setting the excesses of Quebec's Charter of the French Language aside for a moment, a Quebec-Sign-Language-French bilingual, an Algonquin-French bilingual, a Chinese-French bilingual, and an English-French bilingual all have the same chance, all other qualifications being equal, of accessing employment in the Government of Quebec or even to become the premiere of Quebec. The English-French bilingual would have a clear advantage over the others in accessing employment in the Federal Government, including the position of Prime Minister, even if he is somewhat less qualified. This also puts indigenous, English, and other Quebecers (except French Quebecers) on a more equal footing in their need to learn a common second language and makes it more likely that someone seeking services from the Government of Quebec will encounter a civil servant who speaks a sign-language, the local indigenous language, or another unofficial language than someone seeking services from the Government of Canada; and it could save the Government of Canada money in English and French language education for civil servants. Why doesn't any Federal candidate seem to be exploring the possibility of allowing local Federal Government offices to work monolingually in the local dominant official language so as to make employment (and consequently services) at these offices more accessible to members of unofficial-language communities? No local candidate seems to have seriously explored the possibility of introducing an electronic media voucher programme. At present, the CBC functions almost exclusively in English and French in spite of the fact that Deaf, indigenous, and other taxpayers are funding it too. A voucher programme would allow any resident of Canada (let's say over the age of fifteen) to opt out of CBC funding in favour of a common media voucher worth that resident's portion of public media funding that that resident could use towards subscription to media in a language of that resident's choice (possibly with the exception of Esperanto given the prejudices against it). Recognizing that Esperanto-speakers pay taxes too, and that unlike many English and French Canadians, members of Deaf, indigenous, and other unofficial linguistic communities don't necessarily confine their cultural boundaries to Canada's borders, an Esperanto media voucher could also be made available but with stricter rules governing it, namely that: 1. It would be exempted from Canadian Content rules; 2. Participating media organizations could divide voucher funding between text, audio, and video media at their discretion; 3. Though religious NGO's could participate, any flagrant violation of the principle of journalistic objectivity could cost participating media the right to participate in the programme for five years; and 4. Any funding towards text or audio media would be at ten twentieths towards the local indigenous language, nine twentieths towards any unofficial language (which could include or comprise the local indigenous language) except Esperanto, and one twentieth towards Esperanto; and any funding towards video media at ten twentieths towards a sign language, five twentieths towards the local indigenous language, four twentieths towards any unofficial language ( which could include or comprise a sign language or the local indigenous language ) except Esperanto, and one twentieth towards Esperanto. Such a policy would open more employment opportunities in sign languages, the local indigenous language, and other unofficial languages and make more media available in these languages too; and would not cost the Government any extra money since the Government would still decide how much overall funding to earmark to public media, residents deciding only how that funding is to be spent within a freer linguistic market that would be more inclusive of unofficial linguistic communities. No local candidate has seriously explored the possibility of allowing more language options in Canada's packaging and labeling laws. At present, not only do English-French bilinguals have the advantage in accessing employment in the packaging and labeling industries, but English and French monolinguals also enjoy an advantage over indigenous and other unofficial linguistic communities in accessing products so labelled. Canada could allow the indigenous language of the location in which the product is packaged and labelled to replace either English or French. This could save indigenous businesses money in packaging and labeling costs by allowing them to do the translation themselves rather than contracting out to English and French businesses. It would also make it easier for indigenous Canadians to access the information on the packaging, especially given the statistically high rate of functional literacy in neither official language among Canada's indigenous peoples. Canada could also promote a common packaging and labeling market with other states whereby packaging and labeling in at least two languages including the indigenous language of the location in which the product is packaged and labeled appearing anywhere but last, Esperanto appearing last, and all languages being printed in the same size would be able to fulfil the linguistic requirements of the packaging and labeling laws of all member states. Given that many foreign products are sold only at specialty shops at which mostly members of one linguistic community shop, this could reduce packaging and labeling costs for such products which could then be passed on to consumers while also showing solidarity with the world's indigenous peoples. The fact that a phonetic orthography is easier for a deaf person to learn to pronounce and a dyslexic to read and that Esperanto (which uses a phonetic orthography) is from five to ten times easier to learn than English, at least as grammatically precise as French, and the third most common foreign language in Hungarian schools after English and German followed by French as the fourth makes it an ideal alternative packaging and labeling language for an internationally trading state like Canada especially with its adult functional illiteracy rate in the official languages hovering so high. This policy would open Canada's import market to a wider range of products which would in turn give Canadians more choice in the consumer market. Since the businesses themselves would choose which of these packaging and labeling language policies to adopt according to the free market and would be responsible to pay for it, this would cost the Government nothing while increasing indigenous peoples' access to more employment and products in their languages. Gradually abandoning the notion of "two founding races" and policies such as official bilingualism that have been raised on its foundation in favour of a more multilingual language policy as Preston Manning, Scott Reid, and others have proposed would go far towards promoting reconciliation with Canada's indigenous peoples. I'm sure a little brainstorming could produce yet more no-to-low-cost strategies to promote reconciliation, not to replace the higher-cost ones, but rather to complement them so as to significantly enhance their degree of efficiency.

Why French when French is the second most difficult major European language to learn to read and write according to one OECD study in 2005?

English is all of these things BECAUSE OF its official status in education and government over the years. To defend it's official status because of its prestige while ignoring that its prestige comes from its official status is circular reasoning. Should we gradually switch their statuses, Esperanto would overtake English in all of these areas within seventy years. How do we avoid circular reasoning?

But one of the reasons for official bilingualism in the sixties, and probably for the AFN's proposal now, is that few can learn English well and want to understand the packaging and labelling. With Esperanto being from five to ten times easier to learn than English, this could potentially satisfy the demands of non-English-speaking Quebecers and Inuit and others for ecample. Also one reason so many know English and so few know Esperanro is due to an unequal official status, and so using numbers as a reason leads to circular reasoning. Promote language Xbox because it's more dominant while ignoring thatbit's more dominant because of its official status. Esperanto could eliminate an important barrier to trade.

We need a common language for safety reasons though. One solution I could see would be an international agreement requiring packaging and labelling to be in at least two languages (with any additional language being of the company's choosing) and all in the same size with Esperanto appearing last. We could also consider requiring the packaging and labelling to include the local indigenous language of the location where the packaging and labelling was made. Due to Esperanto being from five to ten times easier to learn than English, anyone could learn it in a short time. This would be extremely manageable.

There are still Jews in Germany too. Does that mean there was no holocaust?

Because according to one OECD report, English orthography is over times more difficult to learn than those of Finnish and Greek while about half of Canada's adult population (and 60% on reserves) are functionally illiterate and 20% of Ontario high school students speak neither official language as a mother tongue. Another study in 2005 shows Esperanto to be at least as grammatically precise as French and from five to ten times easier to learn than English.

I agree a transition period would be needed, but why not an IAL at the national level which non-English and non-French Canadians could use as a bridge language that would be easier to learn?

That Fits What happened

I think I'd read on here that 3000 children died. It was over 6000.

They made Welsh official. Oops, bad example. What I don't get is why the same people who oppose an official status for indigenous languages are so quick to defend a privileged status for English and French.

It's actually quite common for the legal and dictionary definitions of words to diverge somewhat.

So according to international law, it was genocide. According to your dictionary, it was not. Now we're all agreed?

None of what you just described wipes out the legal definition of genocide, which is the definition I follow for a common agreed on definition.

But if the common second language were an international auxiliary language like Esperanto (which is proven to be from five to ten times easier to learn than English), then one could learn it quickly and forget it slowly. Add to that that with everyone learning their own language where numbers warrant, the international auxiliary language would often be the only common language in Canada's more cosmopolitan cities like Montreal. In a city like Montreal, that language would likely dominate all communication between complete strangers, at least on the island.

Second-Class Canadian was merely quoting the official legal definition. How are we supposed to understand one another if each person uses his own definition?

What bizarre arguments about Chinese? Chinese has no place in our Constitution and ought not have one either. If anything, I'd even remove French and English myself.

Languages of instruction in public schools are Constitutional, and (except for in Nunavut and on reserves and for the deaf (none of which are protected in the constitution) they are French and English only Canada-wide regardless of local demographics.

Another potential conflict that I could see is that the big three parties support recognizing an offial language Canada-wide, whereas indigenous Canadians tend to prefer an official local status like in Belgium.

Another hard pill for the left to swallow in this would be that giving more language choice in school might need to involve non-state-owned schools.

One challenge I could see though is that official bilingualism is a sacred cow of all three big parties. It essentially challenges their very notion of the Canadian identity being more exclusively Anglo-French.