CANADIEN

Changing parts of the Constitution that recognize the equal status in law of French and English, Stoker? NO Abolishing the parts of the Constitution that (imperfectly) recognize the linguistic rights of Canadians? NO Letting bigots dictate to others in what Canadian language they will be educated and receive government services? NO, NO AND NO There are some in Quebec who would measure their attachment to Canada to the degree of lattitude they can have in trampling on individual rights. To those I say, "Si vous n'êtes pas contents, la porte est là et bon débarras". And I'll say the same to you. If the population of the Western provinces would rather cut its ties with one of the greatest countries in the World than to respect the rights of Canadians, here's the door and good riddance. Oh sure, there would be economic hardship (on both sides, don't fool yourself), but I wonder how seriously many people around the World would take a new "nation" who proclaimed as it's reason to exist "we had French schools".

Stoker, How can I avoid chuckling when someone denies the rights of Canadians then wants to be praised for fairness? What does not make me chuckle though is your sad misunderstanding of democracy. Democracy, you see (or probably can't) does not truely exist unless individual rights are protected. Otherwise, it becomes nothing more than a dictoatorship of the majority. To argue otherwise is to argue (for example) that democracy would have been to let the US South keep segragation. Or that it was the democratic right of some Swiss cantons in the early 1990's to prevent women from voting. Or that Quebec is entirely justified in denying the linguistic rights of its citizens as long as its population wants it.

I listen to the bunk, thelonius. As a Franco-Ontarian, it provides me with a good chuckle.

What if the citizen want the law changed? How a law can be changed finds its legal limit in constitutional laws and its moral limit in the rights of individual citizens. Yet four other facts for you. First, the equal status of French and English is part of our Constitution. Second, language of education rights are also included (although in an imperfect way) in the Constitution. Third, constitutional amendments on linguistic issues warrants UNANIMITY of the provincial and federal governments. And forth, since those linguistic rights belong to each individual Canadian, no one has a moral right to take them away. Not you, not the Quebec government, nobody.

thelonius, You will have noticed that I have not much touched the issue of sign language laws. I am no proponent of them, even though it is not been proven to my satisfaction that a "language also" law (as opposed to a "language only" law or a "language mostly" law) violates individual rights. I have enough just disproving the fallacies put forward by those who deny the rights of Canadians to choose the language (English or French) or their education or in which they access government services.

Stoker, As I said before, I don't care what languages you speak or don't speak. So don't try to pass your denial of the linguistic rights of Canadians as being about "not becoming bilingual". It will not impress me anymore than anything you've said so far. And don't worry about me. I have no inferiority complex whatsover about my language or my culture. I was merely reflecting what you obviously want French-speaking Canadians to be: second-class citizens, denied their right to be educated and receive government services in their language unless the government of a given province decides to throw them that bone. And here goes your empathy.

thelonius, I can take care of my culture myself. The defense of the rights of citizens (including linguistic rights) is one of government's obligations.

Western separation of the respect of the rights of all Canadians? Actually Stoker, I'd go only as far as you separating, but I won't be picky. Let's say I can picture the scene one day at the UN, the Secretary-General welcoming ambassadors of new member countries and asking them why they became independent. Tibetan Ambassador: For decades, our nation and its people were victim of Chinese aggression (Secretary General nodding in agreement). Quebec ambassador: Nous sommes un peuple opprimé (the Secretary General thinking "yeah right"). Greater Alberta ambassador: Uh, we had French schools.

While I am at it, Stoker, thanks for your comment that we should be grateful we were not deported. Makes it clear that we are only second-class Canadians, whose rights and identity exist only as long as you decide they do.

As I suspected, Stoker, facts are an insult to you. And here's another fact to you. I have never said that Western Canada should be bilingual. What I have said, and that you cannot disprove, is that it is and should be the right of every Canadian to choose if they will obtain education and government services in the language they personnally choose, either English or French. And yet another fact. I am not fooled by your "I'm not saying that the right does not exist, just that it shouldn't exist argument". By saying it should not exist, you are denying it. Plain and simple

Stoker, Who tried to suppress the French language? Let's see... At various times in the history of our country, the governments of New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta (and quoting those just from memory) adopted laws that prohibited French-language instruction in publicly funded schools, including those that had been built by local French-speaking communities and paid with their money. In one case, Manitoba, it went as far as violating for more than 90 years linguistic guarantees that had been spelled out in the terms of admission of the province. And the intention was usually clear... to keep French limited to Quebec. Should make you proud, right? So, until you get a better grasp of facts, why don't you give it a rest. Or better not, I still need a good laugh

Stoker, The first payment for the alleged 60 billion is the French schoold that were forcibly converted into English schools through most provinces at various times throughout our country's history. The second one is the amount paid by French-speaking Canadians in the past for government services they were not allowed to access in their own language. With interests, the cost of those denials of Canadians' rights and identity as Canadians should come to a nice little sum.

Stoker, Explanations are for those who have the capacity to understand them. So I will stick to an undeniable fact (even though we both know that you will try - in vain - to deny it). Both the French and English languages are part of the Canadian identity. No amount of economic excuses or pointing that the Queen is British will change that. The lingustic rights of Canadians are the undisputable consequence of that undisputable fact. Nothing you have said, are saying or will say even amounts to a portion of a shred of evidence to the contrary.

Argus, Should I be grateful to you for the survival of the French language in Canada? Sure, as long as you also accept my thanks for how French survived in provinces other than Quebec despite efforts to suppress it.

Argus, You may think that you are the master of the manor and we, Francos, are the lackeys. You may believe that we should be happy to get the scraps of the table (being authorized to use our language as long as it doesn't inconvenience you) while not being admitted to the banquet hall (in other words, staying away from the West, Westmount or Eaton's). Guess what, we are owners of the manor too Argus. If you don't like it, move, and bring your bigotry with you.

Stoker, Keep using economic excuses to deny the right of each and every Canadian to choose to receive their education either in French and English as they choose. It won't change the fact that right should and do exist. But now that I think about it, you may have a point about the alleged violation of rights that occures because French-language education is publicly funded. I will take myself as example. I have been working for more than ten years in an English-speaking environment and (besides my typos), everyone I know or work with would readily certify that I have no problem using or unsterding English. Yet, I attended a French school, not an English one. Based on my personal experience, there is no doubt in my mind that my children, if I got any one day, would not need English school any more than I need. Consequently, it is evident that I have no need for English schools. Isn't it therefore a violation of my right to be made to pay for it through taxes? When do I get my reimbursement, Stoker?

As I suspected, Stoker. Since you cannot prove that equal access to publicly-funded French or English school violates your rights, you resort to the tired "French education or hospital beds" arguments. It would suffice to say that, under your "logic", Quebecers would be better off if they close English schools and invested the money in health care. It boils down to a question of rights. Each and every Canadian HAS a right to choose in what language (Englsi or French) he/she receives publicly-founded educational and other government services. No so-called economic arguments, or false rhetoric about government services or mention of an imaginary "rights violation" will change that. You don't like it? Too bad.

Who wants to deny rights, Stoker? You, and the likes of you. To say that a right should exist only when the majority consents to it is to deny it should exist in the first place. As for the argument that tensions are caused because rights are "forced" on others, it is an age-old fallacy. It is not non-white immigration that causes tension, it is the opposition from anti-immigration folks. It is not working women that cause tensions, it's Neanderthals. Now to the claim that the right for all Canadians to obtain publicly-funded education in either French or English as they personnally choose violates the rights of those who don't want pubicly-funded education in French. I'll pass on the fact I could easily turn your argument around and claim publicly-funded English schools in Quebec violate the rights of those in Quebec who don't want them. I'll concentrate on the real stuff instead. The real stuff is that there is no truth whatsover to your claim. NO right of ANY Canadian is violated because another Canadian can get publicly funded education in either French or English as he/she chooses. You think there is a right violated? Prove it. Show where in the Constitution, or federal or provincial human right codes that right is to be found. If that's not enough, go to British legislation. You can even go fish in the US Constitution, the UN Declaration of Human Rights or the old Soviet Constitution if you want. And don't waste our time arguing it is about "financing of cultures". It is not, it is education rights and access to public services.

Stoker, In case you didn't get it, and you obviously didn't, I DO pay for the educational and government services I receive in French through my taxes. As for notion that denying the rights of French-speaking Canadians through English unilingualism would unify the country, it's not a new one. We have all heard that fallacy through a variety of forms over the years: women's vote will destroy the family, non-white immigrations causes tensions, we should all belong to the same church/vote for the same party, Quebec's language law promote linguistic peace. All the ravings of people unable to accept difference and equality of rights. Disunity in this country is not caused by people attending a publicly-funded French school in Vancouver or a publicly-funded English school in Sherbrooke. Responsibility for the tension is caused, and caused solely, by the likes of you.

As for the problem of jobs designated as French mostly going to people whose first language is French.... I have long been of the opinion that standards in that regard are far too stringent. One knows enough of the language to do the job, that's enough for me. It is also true when the language requested is English. Which is why I always shake my head in disbelief everytimepeople complain that there are "too many immigrants who can't speak English who get government jobs" when the objects of their complaints have more than the linguistic skills required. What is your opinion on THAT, JWAYNE?

sob sob sob JWayne, The usual story. Anytime an initiative appears that actually result in equal rights, there are people who whine that it causes them to have a lesser status. Like it or not, I am your equal as a Canadian, and my CANADIAN language is equal to yours in law. So you can say anything you want about how French immersion does not by itself lead to fluency in French. That has nothing to do with my right as a Canadian to choose the language in which I receive schooling and government services. You can perpetuate the big lie that enjoying those rights gives me a priviledged status at your expense. You can regret the good 'ole days when the Cajuns "knew their place". You can squeal even louder than a Péquiste when he sees a sign in English. After all, unlike you, I am in favour of equal rights of all Canadians... including your right to talk non-sense.

Stoker, A right is a right is a right. ALL Canadians have a right to an education in French or English, publicly funded, regardless of what you or your fellow bigots, either those whining in French in Quebec or those doing it elsewhere, have to say. Anybody who doesn't like it is welcome to keep whining, or to find a place where they're be able to discriminite anyone they want and violate their rights. Oh, and btw, if a majority of Quebecers decided through a vote to completely close English schools in that province through a vote, would it be OK under your own principles of majority allowed to negate minority rights and provincial authority on language issues? Or, as I suspect, would those principle become null and void because of your principle that English must prevail?

Now you have an idea, stoker Let's have each and every citizen's taxes go only to government investments they want. For example, a vegetarian could ask that his money not be spent on meat inspection, a pacifist that his money not go to the military, a senior that his money not fund education (in any language), etc. For myself, let's see... no money for abortion clinics, prosecution of owners of small amounts of marijuana, the gun registry as it currently exists, state visist by President Bush... (I'll find more).

I have indeed missed your point. And we are most certainly in agreement about the fact the Charter actually limits what should be an absolute right. My apologies.

Stoker, Equality, in case you didn't figure it out yet, is a different concept than sameness. In other words, equality cannot and does not exist without respect for rights and for difference. As your contention that French schools should exist where those who want them pay for them through their taxes, guess whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat... I pay taxes in my province. So I guess I will enjoy my French schools while you whine, the same way people in Quebec who want to should be able to enjoy their English schools while the local language dimwits whine.