Bryan

It's a ridiculous waste of time and resources to have anyone in an official capacity learn a language that isn't actually used in any official capacity by anyone. It's fine hobby if you want to learn it, but the cost benefit is not there for any official use.

Only if the Provincial govt in Quebec decided to provide those services. Anything other than english would have to be provided and paid for by the Quebec govt. If the english isn't needed, and an arrangement can be made, the efforts to have english available could be greatly minimized. Even just having someone who can speak french available by phone would easily suffice. Minimal required benefit should incur minimal cost.

Which is why I said: Let Quebec implement french wherever they want it.

Making such a claim is open and deliberate discrimination.

White dudes DO get shot. More often than black ones. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/21/police-kill-more-whites-than-blacks-but-minority-d/

No, that's just straight up discrimination.

I'd make english the only official language in the constitution, and leave all matters of accommodation for local variances on language needs to the local governments.

I would not make any such change to the constitution. The law of unintended consequences. The cost would outstrip the benefit, and courts would increase those costs on each go round.

Let's see. "work with" vs "live with". Add to that, living with deaf people means you are ALWAYS "working with" the deaf community. Nice try though.

People more likely to commit crimes are held more accountable than people less likely to commit crimes. OK. Thanks for clarifying.

Several deaf people in my family, so I highly doubt that.

I have made that choice many times. I was happy that I was able to do so, but I never expected it to be my right.

Yes. For all the crimes they are held accountable for, even more get away with it.

Yes, people who commit more crimes are more likely to have the police watching them. Yes, people who commit more crimes are more likely to get charged with them.

See, that is the real problem with codifying official languages in law. People start seeing it as their right to get service in the language they CHOOSE, even if they speak the one offered. If there is any change that is needed to official language laws, it has to be a change in wording that removes the idea of anyone having a RIGHT to a specific language. As policy, of course governments should do their best to facilitate communication with people who don't understand what they are being told. And they already do in many ways. Government offices will seek out people to help when they have someone for whom the dominant modes of communication won't work -- including having someone translate Newfoundlander to Prairie English. I'm not kidding about that last part, I know of several instances where that really did happen at govt offices in Manitoba.

Not too far off. Good rules to live by.

No, just someone who seems to know more people that you do. Try getting out of the house once in a while, and maybe you can meet people as well.

So? I know quite a few deaf people, and they all can read and write english quite well. It's also the reason that closed caption TV/movies exist.

Yes. If I lived there, Russian would be the language I would think would be very valuable to know. Are you saying it doesn't give you any advantages to know Russian, or just that hardly anyone makes use of them?

No spin at all.

There's no discrimination against gays whatsoever. They are welcome under the same conditions as everyone else.

Considering that I never said or even implied that it did, why would I answer such a question?

He made plenty of them.

Some follow GOD's rules against homosexuality, others make up their own.

Some churches do make their own rules, but that is not what I'm referring to.