CANADIEN

It is aactually tthat standard already. As for Chinese - sorry, but it is not a Canadian language.

If there is sufficient numbers, absolutely. And we are not talking about Quebec numbers.

The "freedom instead of rights" thing is often nothing more than a justification for conscripting governments in efforts to deny others their rights and their freedoms. It is not a coincidence that the cry of "freedom" was bastardized by the opponents of the civil rights movement in the U.S. A government that says "we value freedoms, not rights" is the one that is the most likely to take away both. Rights is not about services. Rights is about the relationship between citizens and government. The right to government services in French in Vancouver and in English in Saguenay is about far more than the provision of service. It is about what Canada is, and what it is to be a Canadian. There is no "better way" to say to an English-speaking Quebecers "you do not belong here" or a Franco-Ontarian "go back to Quebec" than to tell them that services won''t be available in their Canadian language. Right is not about whims. Freedom, when rights are ignored, is about whims.

There is a difference between order and a regime where the rights of the citizens are abrogated in the name of "efficiency".

The duties of a member of society are simple: - to respect others, their dignity and their rights - to respect the laws, to the extent that they respect the rights of citizens - to take part in the democratic process (if they choose to) and in society's debates in a fashion respectful of the law and of others - in exceptional ciscustances, to defend that society (unless prevented by legitimate consciencious objection) Anything apart from that, or that is not an extension of that, can only exist in a society that places itself above the individual and makes the individual a servent of the state, instead of things being the other way around.

That explains it all. Sorry but in the long run, diictatorships (even ones that use an election process as a facade) do not work, for one reason. Human beings. As Churchill said, "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

Actually, i am not making that confusion. It seems, however, that for you individual rights is less important that administrative efficency. Like it or not, it's supposed to be the other way around. I was actually referring the idea of eliminating the appeal process as it is a waste of money, and therefore inefficient. That idea was very popular in fascists regimes (not that I would say you're a fascist). I am not a big fan of unions either. That being said, the right of workers to form and join a union is a fundamental human right. And that trumps any notion of "efficiency". Anti-defamation law are reasonable in that they protect the reputation of the individual. First, elections are not service, it's the tool by which the citizens choose their representatives. And if 'efficiency" and "economy" is to dictate how we are to be governed, elections, even without party politics, cost money. They take time. A disctatorship is far more "efficient". We have two national languages, English and French, that have, as they should equal status. Federal government services is provided in either language as numbers warrant, as it should be. I also believe that federal government services should be available in First Nation languages where numbers warrant. As for Mandarin, to take your example, it is not, with all due respect for that language, a Canadian language, any more than French is a Chinese language. I do not have a particular problem with a government employee talking to a citizen in Mandarin, but not doing so does not violate a Canadian's right. As employers, governments are providing their employees with training on computer skills (new softwares), management skills, time management skills, proooject skills. If in the military, they are provided with weapons training. In other words, governments as employers are providing training to increase their employees' efficiency, the same as any employer does.. Language training is no different. Surely, you are not arguing that the government should provide free time management training to all citizens, or offer free course in piloting a CF-16 to everyone? Nor are you, I am sure, advocating that governments should stop offering their employees opportunities to learn ays to do their jobs better and more efficienctly. That would not help (or hinder) democracy, but it would sure make governments less efficient.

Actually, i am not making that confusion. It seems, however, that for you individual rights is less important that administrative efficency. Like it or not, it's supposed to be the other way around. I was actually referring the idea of eliminating the appeal process as it is a waste of money, and therefore inefficient. That idea was very popular in fascists ewgimes (not that I would say you're a fascist). I am not a big fan of unions either. That being said, the right of workers to form and join a union is a fundamental human right. And that trumps any notion of "efficiency". Anti-defamation law are reasonable in that they protect .

The requirement that some federal government jobs be occupied by people fluent in one, or both of our national languages is NOT discriminatory against anyone. What's next? Perhaps I should go to the Human rights Commission and complain that I'm being discriminated against because nobody would hire me as a doctor without medical training?

The primary role of government in a democratic society is to be society's tool in advancing the rights and security of its citizens. Administrative efficiency cannot trump this role. There are many things that would appear to be a lot more efficient than what the governments do now: eliminate local governments and centralizing; remove the right of a convicted criminal to appeal his/her sentence; re-instating the death penalty and apply it within minutes of sentencing; outlawing labour unions or emasculating them; censorship; even dispensing with elections. We'd have China. I'd rather have "inefficient" canada any day of the week.

Quebec is NOT closer to the right balance. What you call administrative efficiency (a term that could also be applied to any good 'ole dictatorship - remember the saying about Italian trains under Mussolini) is nothing more than blatant discrimination. English-language services aare NOT provided by the Quebec government as numbers warrant. They are provided where more than half the population speaks English. That ratio is unreasonably high, and is discriminatory. It's the Quebec government that should learn from the Federal government, and from the Ontario government for that matter, not the other way around. As for municipalities being proclaimed officially bilingual. That should be for municipalities to decide. Even in the case of the only Ontario city designated as bilingual by a provincial act, Ottawa, the decision was suported by a majority of the elected members of City Council.

Care to show the map of the mass graves? You know my opinion of Quebec language laws. But the use of that term, in that context, is an insult to the victim of the Yugoslav Civil War, and their families. There is not enough Anglophones in Quebec provincial public service. But let's compare apples with apples, shall we? Let's compare with other provinces, since we are talking about the government of a Province. Most importantly, the "Quebec is mistreating its linguistic minority" line, while based on a fact, is something better delivered by people who are not using it as a veil to hide their opposition to official bilingualism.

Indeed. Rights are a scam, and the Liberals get most of Quebec seats at each and every federal election. Right.

Yes. You don't imagine you can spend your time saying how bad Quebec-language laws are when you want even worse in Ontario, with nobody pointing the double-speak, do you? Could it be because most provincial politicians know they cannot with sa straight face "bad bad Quebec, let's do the same". I find it interesting that you have ALWAYS refused to define exactly what kind of language laws an official unilingual Ontario should have. Beyond no government services in French that is. Nothing about education. Basically nothing about the language of business and commercial signs. Virtually nothing beyond, "English will be the official language", which can mean anything under the sun. Scared of showing how far you'd go to trample on individual rights, or you just don't have a clue what you're talking about?

Was referring to the way you denounce Quebec language laws then turn around and advocate something similar. You reallly really don't get a clue.

You forgot to add that this took place in La-la Land, not in the REAL Canada. As long as it is in English, right? I wouldn't either. If it were happening.

No... But it is highly entertaining to wtach you promote what you denounce when it's done by others. Especially when you are so cluesless about it that your stance is never even really hypocritical.

We are, through respect for the rights of the individual. Sorry it clashes with your delusion. The fact that Quenecers should get health care in Quebec aside, let's get to the real point, shall we? The fact that any excuse will do for you to treat French-speaking Ontarians like if they were not Ontarian? The funniest past is that you actually believe what you write.

And French culture as well as french-Canadian cultures are not white or Western. :lol: The same one you would gladly adopt?

Don't remind him. It's sure is a big source of disappointment to him.

Too bad you keep whining about an integral component of democracy and freedom... respect for individual rights.

In the case of Ontario, a provincial law voted UNALYMOUSLY by the representatives of the people governs the provision of services in French. In Manitoba, it stems from the terms of admission of the Province into Confederation.

The joke is that you think there are french propagandists here. And that includes Canada. Actually, adequate access to hospital services for all Canadians is the business of ALL Canadians. Adequate access to hospital services for all Ontarians is the business of ALL Ontarians, including myself. If there is inadequate access to hospital services in English in Ottawa, then it is my business as an Ontarian and a Canadian to argue that they should improve, and to vote in politicians who would make it happen. Are hospital services offered to English-speakers in ottawa adequate or not? If you think not, prove it with something less laughable than "the services are also offered in French". Here we go with the "elected politicians represents me only when they agree with my preejudice" nonsense. And btw, I am an Ontario taxpayer. I am still waiting for you or anyone to prove that I pay less taxes than other Ontarian because of my first language.

OK now, entertain us. Who was the first US Black president?

There are those who would claim that I, as a French-speaking Canadian, should assimilate. That would be to become someone that I am not right now, since that's the end result of assimilation. FACT is, I could not assimilate to become a Canadian, since I already AM a Canadian.