CANADIEN

I was circumcized as a baby (not for religous reasons). I have never felt myself assaulted or mutilated. I doubt there are that many men who think that either.

So, he won't be appointed judge anytime soon. Good... we can concentrate on the principle here. I do expect a government to appoint judges who fit their idea of what a judge should be. I would expect they hire people who have a track reputation as knowing the law. As for appointing recently retired politicians, or even worse appointing them straight from the Cabinet... WRONGGGGGGGGG idea. Even the person is Moses brought back to Earth, it looks too much like a partisan appontment.

THAT DOES IT :angry: NOBODY here has said anything about the Quebec Act, but that would not deter you from claiming I did. And you claim that I detest English-speaking Canadians - for what, making it clear I believe Quebec's language laws are discriminatory, undemocratic and a pile of m*nure? Your reference to the "superior culture" and the imbecile statement that I am condescending for having a problem with being told to "speak white" is prove enough of your hatred for French-speaking CANADIANS. Yes, I am CANADIAN, and more than you. Not because of my language, not because of where I was born, but because I am not full of hatred.. And my language rights as a CANADIAN did not become extinct the day my ancestors crossed the Ottawa River. You can't understand something that simple, your problem. It took a long time, but today French-speaking CANADIANS are truly equal before federal laws and Ontario laws. Hopefully, there will be a day when English-speaking CANADIANS are truly equal before Quebec laws again. I have said enough, I have heard enough from you. Feel free to insult me at lenght. I won't even read. You are not worth it.

Those who advocate kicking Quebec out of Canada are advocating breaking-up Canada. No if, no but, no why.

The Constitution, human rights convention, and simple common sense show clearly that to be truly democratic - that is, representative of all citizens - the State must respect individual rights, and minority rights. That applies to Quebec, and to all other provinces. Interesting, btw, that notion of "Quebec rights" - that is, of rights Canadians enjoy in certain parts of the country but not in others. what a better way to make it clear that French-speaking Canadians are second-class citizens. Which is non-sense, and discriminatory. Not that I believe that there is any Ontario or federal law at the moment which violates my language rights. There is none, and if there was I would have said so. Saying I don't want any to be enacted is not the same as saying they exist.

French is not a threat to Ontario... unless it is spoken in government offices and at government counters.

If a totally French state is undemocratic, then wouldn't a totally English state be undemocratic either? In and by itself, the decision by the Quebec government to make French the province's sole official language is not what constitute an affront to democracy. It is the willingless to trample minority and human rights to do so. Those who are willing to do the same to minority rights in Ontario are advocating something that is blatantly undemocratic.

If Quebec is declaring war on Canada by proclaming French as it sole official language, then logic dictates that any province that proclaimed English to be it sole official language would be declaring war on its French-language CANADIAN citizens. What non-sense on both sides of the equation. Quebec, as a member of Confederation, must assume not only its benefits, but also its responsibilities, including due respect for minority rights. So must each province. Canada is indeed a country, in all its diversity. And one of the best in the world, in part due to its diversity. Despite the claims of those it is not a real county, and the claims of those it has to deny individual and minority rights to do so. And those who claim that the test of loyalty to Canada is the willingless to deny other people's rights and advocating breaking up the county are wrong on both counts. I am a Canadian, my rights are here, I am here and neither are going anywhere out of this great country of ours (except on vacations )

French-speaking Canadians have NOT historically enjoyed the same rights as other Canadians, unless one claims that there is a right to receive government services... in English only, and schooling... in English only. As for the idea that assimilation is the reason why so many French-speaking Canadians today are bilingual (English-French), it flies in the face of logic. Those who assimilated gave up their first language and adopted another one. They taught that other language to their children, and discouraged them from keeping the language they had discarted. French-speaking Canadians who assimilated became English-speaking Canadians. By the way, the percentage of French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec who are literate IN BOTH ENGLISH AND FRENCH has increased as a result of access to French-language education, so has the percentage of French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec graduating from ENGLISH-speaking universities. As for the notion that those who assimilated did it freely... sure, they were not forced at the gunpoint to give up French, but how truly free is the choice to switch language when your children are forbidden from learning that language in the schools you built, when the media, government and even the Church keep telling you you are inferior, when the message you get everywhere is to "speak white"? And there are some who think they can still do the same today and then turn around and say that to do otherwise is discriminating against them.

Interesting... calls for fairness towards the English language population in Quebec are met by some not with agreement but with "it's not relevant"... unless of course it can be used as an argument against fairness towards the French language population in Ontario.

There is a fundamental difference between Quebec's language legislation and Ontario's French Language Services Act. The stated objective of Quebec's law is to make French the common language of Quebec's society. It treats English is a foreign entity (despite the empty words of its preamble). The stated of objective of Ontario's law is to provide for a certain level of access to services in French in government. It treats French as (quoting from the preamble of the act) "(...) an historic and honoured language in Ontario". Quebec's law then includes measures to prohibit or otherwise limit the use of English in government and in public life, to point of including dispositions there are clearly discriminatory and in violation of basic human rights. The Ontario law does no such thing. The Quebec Government would do well to remove legislative dispositions that are contrary to basic fairness and human rights. The Ontario Government does well to ignore calls to get rid of the French Language Act and does well to stay away from treating French in Ontario the way English is treated in Quebec. This being said, there are people who wrongly believe there is no difference between the two, that both "impose French". That position is contrary to logic, as we are talking about two laws with different objectives. It is also the sad counterpart of the attitude of some in Quebec who scream bloody murder every time they see English on a sign yet want to fool people in believing they care about French-language minorities elesewhere in Canada.

A by-law or law that mandates the presence of French on commercial signs in communities where French is the majority language or is the first language is discriminatory or racist, and violates human rights... or so do claim people who see nothing wrong with the same kind of laws or by-laws if they mandate English. Either it is always discriminatory or racist and it always violate rights, or it is not. The usefulness and need of that type of legislation is often debatable. But I agree with the UN human right panel in the McIntyre v Canada case - unless they prohibit the use of a given language, they do not violate human rights.

There are some in Quebec who claim that official bilingualism, or even limited government services in English, is discriminatory against the French-speaking majority, that it takes jobs away from French-speakers, that it threatens the French language itself. To them, even minimal requests (like the translation of municipal by-laws in Gatineau) is a form of "Anglo fanatism". These people are wrong. Fundamental fairness towards a minority which is an essential component of Quebec's society would not discriminate against anyone, now would it take anything from anyone. Asking for fairness is not fanatism. In itself, proclaiming French to be Quebec's sole official language is not unfair. What is blantantly unfair, and discriminatory, is what came with it. The worst part is the clear attempt at making provincial government services in English so rare as being close to unexistant; the message to Quebec's English minority is clear - you do not belong here. And they are some in Ontario who claim the same things about the need to protect English against an equally non-existing threat against the English language. They are equally wrong and they will not prevail. And they still will not say how low they are ready to go.

I do not worry about things that are not going to happen, like Ontarians loosing their language rights. I do not worry about threats that do not exist, like the imaginary threat to the English language. I can see, however, why some worry about showing how much they would do to violate the rights of others.

Those who believe that the rights of all citizens is not a fundamental component of a true democracy and who reject rights for all citizens are promoters of the same kind of "democracy" (unfettered majority rule at the expense of rights) that gave us anti-Chinese head taxes, gave segragation to the Americans, and gave Quebec it's language laws.

Let's talk about Ontario, shall we? (with a bit of a hint at BC). The percentage required for provincial government services in French is actually 10%, not 5%, the same as it should be for provincial government services in English in Quebec. As mandated in the Constitution, minority language education is avaialble wherever numbers justify it (in other words, where there are enough kids). Ontario's French language Services Act does NOT apply to municipalities. It does not NOT apply to hospitas. It most certainly does NOT apply to churches. As for municipal by-laws regarding language in business... municipalities near Toronto passed by-laws mandating the use of English in commercial signs. Toronto, for one, has a by-law that states that taxi clients have the right do be served in English. By-laws mandating the use of English on signs exist in some BC municipaliities. As well, there have been calls - few, fortunately - for legislation that would prohibit the use of language other than English or French by banks. A few yeears backk in Ottawa, there were calls for a municipal by-law mandating the use of English on commercial signs, en response to an alleged threat to the English from the owners of the intercity bus stop - that had remove their English sign and kept only their French sign... while the English sign was at the repair shop

I for one find it always interesting when people who do not like the Charter of Rights and Freedom because it protects other people's rights then complain that it is not enforced to their benefit, but I digress... It is also very interesting that people who do not want official bilingualism outside of Quebec want it in Quebec, topping it with ignorance of the FACT that the federal government provides the SAME level of federal services in English in Quebec as it does with federal services in French elsewhere in the country. But one again I digress... One has to wonder, though exactly what kind of legislation and rules would they implement to make let's say Ontario officially unilingual and more importantly "protect" English.

There are claims that Ottawa's municipal bilingual policy is both undemocratic and discriminatory. Let's forget for a moment that democracy is about more than just majority rule but the rights of all and fairness for all. The democratically elected city council voted for that policy. If we want to make majority opinion the measure of democracy, then one has to keep in mind that woman's bote, for one thing, came into existence in a similar fashion, and that segragation ended in the US through court orders, but I digress. As for the claim the policy is discriminatory. suffice to to say the court found it was not the case. "Canadians for Language Fairness", the group that launched the court challenge, could not find arguments in law, the toery of law or in facts to ground their case on.

Clearly, in and by itself a provincial legislation that declared the province to be officially unlingual English-speaking would not be discriminatory and would violate nobody's rights. It is equally clear that if it's the case then Canada's official bilingual status is not discriminatory and violates nobody's rights. That being said, one has to be careful that such a law does not contain the seeds of discriminatory rules that violates basic freedom. It happened in Quebec, through the French Language Charter. Those who call for an English Language Charter in other provinces should not be surprise if people suspects they want the same kind of rules.

Any law, regulation or by-law forbidding the use of any language on commercial signs clearly violates freedom of expression. Any law (etc.) that mandates that certain languages be on commercial signs does NOT violates freedom of expression. Case in point... the McIntyre v. Canada case A bit of background. In 1989, three Quebec business people went to The United Nations Human Rights Committee, claiming that their rights were violated by Quebec language laws that (at the time) entirely prohibited English on business signs. As Canada (the country) was a signatory of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, their complaint was against the federal government, although they did not complain against any federal law. Here's what the panel that heard the claim said (bold passages are from me) Makes sense to me.

From the Toronto Star Actually, we can be grown-up, and we are. Canada has historical ties with Great Britain. That connection is part of our country's identity, of who we are. You want to change the name? Let's extend it beyond Victoria and call it Monarchs' Day, then. Altough I would stick to Victoria Day myself.

The English-language community in Gatineau would be justified in advocating, not only trnaslation of by-laws, but full equality of English and French in municipal administration and services. Ottawa, as the capital of our country, rightly implemented such a policy. Gatineau, home to the head of federal departments, and closely linked to Ottawa, should do the same.

There is NOTHING in the proposed Russell Township by-law that abrogates the rights of any person, no more that if a town in Quebec with an almost 50% English-speaking population decided to have a by-law mandating the presence of English on commercial signs. Mind you, rather than a by-law, I would have suggested a boycott of the businesses whose owners show no respect for a community that has been there for over a century... If I do not belong in that community, then my money does not belong in their store. The by-law was adopted by the democratically elected township council. Those who are opposed to it are free to vote for other candidates in the next election. As long as they don't vote for Quebec-style laws that would mandate English-only signs. But then, there are those who favour Quebec-style laws to "protect" English in Ontario.

I know plenty well the thread is about language rights. Your attacks against it (and against common sense), and your ranting about who is and is not a true Canadian make it very clear. The same type of policy YOU want to implement in other provinces. You think I want to silence you? The more you write, the more YOU make my point for me.

In other words, through the same kind of actions YOU denounce as discriminatory. :lol: