CANADIEN

Bakunin, Correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that an immigrant whose first language is English could not have his/her kids educated in English in Quebec. Also, parents who have studied in French cannot send their kids to an English school in Quebec (again, if I understand it well). If that's accurate, it is wrong in both cases.

stoker, One more thing you can't get. Your line of questioning is to me like the questioning as a lawyer asking the accused "when did you cease to beat your wife?". It is a COMPARISON. At least, some will get it. Now, I have responded to your tendencious "why not Mandarin" question. That you don't like the answer doesn't make it non-existant. And since you got the misguided impression I believe that some languages are superior to others, let me clarify myself. You are totally wrong. As far as I concerned, the notion that a given language is superior to another is ridiculous (to use a polite term). But what do you think? Are some languages superior to other? As for your belief that I have now found "that language programs are neither fiscally feasable nor prudent", it sure provided me with a good laugh. I haven't gone to that conclusion. I haven't even thought about whether or not it is the case. As I made it clear before, I don't CARE what language the person standing in front of me at the post office will be using. And I don't CARE what language my next door neighbour will have his kids educated in, and how it will be funded.

eureka, I wonder what you think Trudeau meant. Without knowing the rest of what he wrote, it sounds to me that he was referring to Quebec's language laws. I see the issue of other languages differently than you (correct me if I am wrong). Are there languages other than English and French that warrant, at least in part, the same status, namely First Nations languages. I don't see that as the granting of new rights, but as the expension of what is included in existing rights, namely, those associated with national languages.

seebee, chuckles asides... English is an easier language to learn because there are more opportunities to learn it. Now, how long before some claim that this is unfair to English-speakers?

Bro, The notion that equal rights actually means that the minority dictating to the majority is so old, has been applied to so many situations and is so obviously false that it is not even worth commenting on it. Now, some facts. To begin with, most jobs in our country's federal civil service still do not require knowledge of both French and English. As for the argument that a requirement to know both languages excludes English-speakers from certain positions... It is inaccurate, although I will be the first to admit language requirements are at times applied too strictly. I personnally know English-speaking Canadians who work in bilingual positions at the federal government, and they are obviously neither prevented from working there nor looking like they've been deprived of their rights.

Stoker, Not that you could get it, but I have said why some languages can be defined as this country's national languages, and what it means in educational terms. I won't repeat myself here. That being said, nothing of it is a statement that there should, or that there shouldn't be, publicly-funded schools in languages other than French, English and First Nation languages. I do not believe that in those cases it is an issue of rights, but anybody who GENUINELY believes I am wrong is welcome to put his/her argument forward. Are there then arguments that could be advanced either in favour or against public funding of schools in languages other than French, English and First Nation languages? Of course there are, on both sides. Could make for a good debate. I have not formed an opinion on it, but I know one thing. No matter what could be said for or against publicly-funded schools in let's say Afrikaans, I know as a fact it would not take away a single right I have as a Canadian. Now go ahead, Stoker, say that I am skirting the issue. Would be no different from saying I refuse to say when I stop beating my wife. But speaking of skirting... is majority support of the removal or negation of a right always make it democratic?

The right thing to do, Bro, is to respect the right of all Canadians to choose a school in the Canadian language is their choice, that is either a French, English or First Nation language school. The wrong thing is to take away that right, like the Quebec governtment currently does and some people on this board would do. Now tell me, Bro, what rights is an English-speaking Canadian leaving outside Quebec losing (except the unacceptable language discrimination in Quebec)?

Bakunin, You may not have noticed, but I said little about the issue of what language a person "needs" to know. There is no doubt, after all, that it is advantageous for someone living in Quebec to know French and for someone living in Ontario to know English. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the fundamental question, which is one of individual rights. Besides, it is to the individual, not to the State, do make those decisions based on what he/she believes serves his/her interests the best. As for the respect argument, I have heard it time and time again, and I am so glad I can finally ask the question I have always wanted to ask in return: is an Ontarian choosing a publicly-funded French school lacking in respect for other Ontarians?

Funny, isn't it, that some of the people who don't want their fellow Canadians to be able to access goernment services or receive publicly-funded education in French are quick to say they don't mind people in Quebec speaking it. First note that some of them say Quebec, not Canada. Just a distraction, or a slip of the keyboard revealing that they just don't want French around them? Not accusing anyone, by the way. And, not knowing whether or not they'd do it, I certainly wouldn't accusing them of being the kind of people who would, let's say, leaving of threatening message on a voice mail because the greeting is in English and French, question the mental health of someone who seeks services in French in a post office, or rudely interrupt a conversation in a bar because it's in French. or start singing our national anthem the second they are a conversation in French (all things, ladies and gentlemen, I have personnally experienced). One thing is sure, when that happen, I wasn't in the presence of members of "Canadian Parents for French". BTW, if French schools exist at "taxpayers' expense" (as opposed to a more accurate description of reality, that is they are publicly-funded because Canadian have a right to attend them if they individually choose to), does that mean I don't pay taxes?

Stoker, I expected exactly this coming from you. And as I expected, your accusation makes me laugh. And so does your use of a principle you don't believe in (rights) to try justifying its removal from a country you don't want to exist (Canada). I am glad however, to see that there are facts you know. Such as how Chinese-Canadians contributed, too often by the brutal (accidental) shortening of their life, to building our country (our meaning, of course, the country of all Canadians). And since you know that, you sure know that the thanks they got were for the longer time laws that denied them the right to become citizens, head taxes destined to discourage them from settling here, measures to prevent them from bringing their families, racial (or should I say racist?) immigration quotas. All laws voted by elected representatives of the majority, strongly supported by the majority. And I am most certainly glad to see that, unless it concerns languages, you are not ready to back your "principle" to the full extent, that is that a majority will justifies trampling on individual rights. Now, to people who can get it (that excludes you, Stoker). If my criteria to define our national languages (a clearer term to define what I have in mind) is wrong, please tell me what better criteria could be used) If you think that a certain language meet or does not meet that criteria, say why. Be sure of one thing. No matter whether I think you're right or wrong. you will NEVER see me oppose public funding of schools in a certain language on the ground I don't want or don't need it or that funding would come from my taxes. And I have better things to do when waiting in line at the post office than to object to a client asking for stamps in let's say, Catalan (please feel free to substitute any other language) and the clerk responding in the same (therefore, as we all notice, providing a publicly-funded service in that language).

Close to 80% of Quebec's population speaks French as its first language, Bakunin. Despite the fact most immigrants over the past two centuries chose English. Letting immigrants enjoy the same rights as other residents (and in particular, letting those who become citizens enjoy the same rights as other citizens) is unlikely to result in French-speaking Quebecers becoming a numerical minority in Quebec for a long long time. As for the "system". Access to government services in English or French is the right of any Canadian.

Bakunin, Apart from some rights specifically tied with citizenship (right to vote mainly), immigrants are IMHO entitled to the exact same rights as those born in the country. Especially those who become citizens... one is a citizen or one is not. As for whether or not somebody needs to be bilingual anywhere in the country, that's that person's business. Doesn't change lingusitic rights.

ceasar, Teaching of Mandarin as a second language in English-speaking schools could indeed be a great idea, and I most certainly wouldn't oppose it. I could argue however that it would be even better in the larger schools (more students, more possibility for options) to offer a wide variety of languages and let students choose. I would even suggest that in English schools in Quebec, a very good choice as a second language would be the one in which students are likely to do quite a bit of shopping, socializing, working as long as they live in Quebec... French. In the case of French language schools, the evident choice as a second language would be English, wouldn't you agree?

thelonius, It takes more than being spoken by taxpayers or providers of fine cooking for a language to be considered part of what define us as Canadians. IMHO, First Nation languages are part of the national fabric because they are the national languages of communities whose historical territory is (or at least in part) in Canada. On those territories, the languages in questions are (or historically were) the common language of those born or joigning the said community. At first glance, it would seem that neither English or French meet that criteria. However, English and French communities have historically established themselves (unfortunately, at the expense of First Nations). These communities are different (more in the case of French communities, but that's a bit besides the point) from those of the same language in Europe. To various degrees, in parts of the country where they were the majority, their language became the common language for them and those joigning their community. These communities created their own schools, publicly funded (that is, before government-funded education, community-funded). To me, that's what makes all those languages part of our national fabric. The history of Mandarin of this country is not similar to that of First Nation languages, French or English. If I am wrong on that, correct me. If we need another criteria to establish a given language is indeed part of waht define us as Canada, explain it.

maplesyrup, Isn't it funny that someone who can't accept difference and individual rights, hence minority rights, would try to entrap you with a question on minorities? Let HIM prove that the hypothetical individual he refers too is a member of a linguistic minority as would be defined under let's constitutional law or international conventions.

Stoker, It is the right of each and every Canadian to receive an publicly funded education in English or in French as they individually decide. To which I will add (with my apologies to the First Nations) that this right extends to First Nation languages. The only acceptable limitation is whether or not there are enough people in a given location who wants to be educated in the language in minority locally to have a school. Will I need to repeat myself yet again, or will you get it one of these days? This right exists because those languages are all part of our country's national fabric, what makes Canada different from other countries. This is an undisputable fact. I believe it also can't be disputed that Mandarin, Italian or Punjabi (to take three languages at random) are not part of our national fabric. Some of course will call be hypocrite for saying this, but coming from bigots... Anyone thinks I am wrong about those three languages? I am open to arguments that will change my mind. Not notions of majority will, but a demonstration that they are part of our national fabric.

You want Quebec's sovereignty, Bakunin? Try convincing the 60%+ of Quebecers who consider Canada to be their country. Or you can try convince me that it is right for the Quebec government to limit access to English language schools (if you agree with that, of course). Those who advocated closing publicly-funded French schools in the rest of Canada keep failing to make their "point", so its time for others to try. I will only add this to what I have already said. Quebecers have the right to choose by themselves, independently from government interference, to choose a publicly-funded schooling in French OR English, not only as Canadians, but also as QUEBECERS.

Of course, IMR (btw, if you object to my acronym, "I miss (...), let me know). Equality of rights for all means of course special status for some. And the melting pot is way much better than acknowledgement and respect of diversity. After all, we all know that there is far less racial tensions in the great American melting pot than here.

"Normal" Mexico, Bakunin, has known more revolutions than the Canadians have won Stanley Cups. Racial intolerance has been a regular feature throughout the history of the "normal" United States, up to and including a Civil War. Joe Clark, in probably his only good insight throughout a career of dedicated and honest although incredibly bumbling services to Canada, once described our country as a "community of communities". A place where differences are acknowledged, not by building walls around silos where only those who "fit in" are granted membership, but by recognizing and respecting the rights of each individual. Some will say that going that way makes this country "abnormal". I will take it any day before what you, Argus and Stoker have to offer.

Argus, Thank you for reminding me of who I am with that phrase "The French are the bigots". Not French-speaking Canadians, we all noted, since it is evident that I do not deserve to be called a Canadian. Not some, not most, "The"... all French-speaking Canadians. I never realized that, since the moment I said my first words (or is it genetic?), my goal in life has been to spit on the Anglos, rob the Anglos, get lazy at the Anglos' expense, negate to the Anglos their rights, lie about the Anglos, vote only for federal parties led by non-Anglos (never voted Bloc or Liberal, btw, but since I am French, my bulletin probaly changed itself once in the ballot box). Do I forget everything? Thank you for that, and for confirming what is evident about you.

Bakunin, Or course... only blind people believe in tolerance, compromise and the respect of individual rights. Whatever. Your eyes may to be open, but there is nothing unnatural about French-speaking communities in the Maritimes older than Quebec and that survived deportation. In communities in the Windsor area that existed before Chicoutimi. In communities throughout the West. Or in English-speaking communities in Coaticook, in Gaspé, in Trois-Rivières. Those communities are made up of CANADIANS, with the same rights, linguistic rights included, through all our country. Shame on anyone who seeks to take that away.

Stoker, As I said before, a society that tramples on individual rights because the majority wishes to do so may look like democracy, but it is nothing more than a dictatorship by majority fiat. And where does it stop? Would forbidding members of First Nations to vote be democratic, if the majority wanted it? And how about laws denying citizens the right to vote for being born in a country they fled because of ethnic persecution? And laws prohibiting people from entering certain buildings because of the color of their skin? And the forcible sterilization of people with intellectual disabilities? And racial (i should say racist) quotas in immigration? Laws doing just that have existed at a moment or another throughout the history of our country. Those laws had the support of the majority of the population. Tell me, Stoker, were they democratic law? And it's not a pick and choose proposition. Either the violation of individual rights with the approval of the majority is always democratic or it is never.

thelonius, As a Canadian I would miss the West. Because it is part of who we are. What I wouldn't miss is anyone there or elsewhere who thinks that being Canadian is not good enough for them.

Stoker, The break-up of a country is a difficult process, politically, socially and economically for all parties involved. Not that I expect you to grasp it. Now why should Canadians in let's say Vancouver should pay for schools in French? For the same reason canadians in Gaspé should pay for schools in English. Because it is the right of each and every Canadian to receive a publicly-funded education in French or English as he or she individually chooses. That right, and the unacceptable nature of any law restricting it, won't go away because of the ravings of people who don't even want to be Canadians, whether they are in Montreal or sitting in front of your computer. So you want to go, Stoker (and I mean you personnally), then go. And want to know why the western provinces should remain part of Canada? Because, like it or not, most of its population consider CANADA as their country, not the pseudo-nation of your whinning-induced dreams. Too bad, but looks like you'll have to build your French-free dreamland all by yourself.

Argus, Your denounciation of Quebec's unacceptable language laws (and as I made it clear they are) would sound sincere if it was not for your most evident hatred and bigotry. Plus the fact that you would have loved to go even farther (closing French schools) than the Quebec government (limiting access to English schools). So spare me the crocodile tears, I won't provide the Kleenex. Instead, do something constructive. Like: - demonstrate than the Durham Report and think that a swell idea. - finding the text of Ontario's Regulation 17 and advocate it be made part of the Constitution - denounce the fact that two decades ago the Supreme Court of Canada ordered the Manitoba government to resume offering the French-language services it had discontinued for more than 90 years in violation of the conditions for its admission in Confederation. Oops, I forgot, you can't do any of that, all those things are figment of my imagination.