Russell by-law spat sparks bilingual study

[CANADIEN]

Lord Durham did not think so:

According to Durham, the French culture in Canada had changed little in 200 years, and showed no sign of progress like British culture had. His report contains the famous assessment that Canada consisted of "two nations warring within the bosom of a single state." (1838)

Durham recommended that Upper and Lower Canada be united into one province, which would give British Canadians a slight advantage in population. He also encouraged immigration to Canada from Britain, to overwhelm the existing numbers of French Canadians and hopefully assimilate them into British culture.[1] The freedoms granted to the French Canadians under the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and the Quebec Act of 1774 should also be rescinded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Report_on_the_Affairs_of_British_North_America

Too bad for him (and for you) that it didn't work. French speaking CANADIANS just wouldn't get along with being assimilated.

My inability?

Yep Edited October 6, 2010 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

Au contraire:

To be added to the list: starting in 1849, all laws of the Legislature of the Province of Canada where published in English and French.

Warning to Leafless, the link is both English and french

And in case Leafless is tempted to dismiss all that you mentioned because it was before Confederation, there is of course the Constitution Act of 1867, the Manitoba Act of 1870, the North West Territories Act of 1877.

Good for Lord Durham. Did I not say the concept of minority rights in centuries past was not the same as ours now? Was Lord Durham the British government? And did the British government really give much support to any of Durham's suggestions relating to language? The above chronology, especially the part after 1840, will give you a clue.

Actually, the Britsh Government did follow Lord Durham`s program. the Union of Upper and Lower Canada in 1841 was designed to bring the assimilation of the french-speaking population. Both Upper Canada and Lower Canada were given the same number of members in the new Legislative Assembly in order to put the Francophones in a minority situatuion, even though the French-speaking population of the United Canada was (until the 1850's) higher than the Anglophone population. Use of the French language in the Legislative Assembly or int he laws of the new colony was prohibited.

(Un)fortunately, French-speaking members of the Legislature just kept igoring this disposition and the rest is history.

Edited October 6, 2010 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

I'll do you one better, the ignore function.

I would recommend against it. You would be missing some great (involuntary) comedy routines.

[bloodyminded]

I don't think they are bigots.

They are simply fed up with corrupt dictated government language legislation making them TRUE 2nd class citizens.

They're not second class citizens.

The English are not oppressed in New Brunswick.

It makes no difference what the narcissistic little pantywaists claim; they're full of horsehit.

Actually I believe in the territorial principle for Canada.

If you are French you go and live in Quebec.

If you are English speaking you go and live anywhere else in English speaking Canada.

Such a "principle" does not exist.

[Leafless]

Au contraire:

Still has nothing to do with with a language policies FORCED on Canadians by a Quebec French PM who worked for the province of Quebec and had just as much disrespect for English speaking Canadians as he did the Queen.

[Leafless]

I'll do you one better, the ignore function.

Absolutely wonderful.

[Leafless]

Indeed, how dared anyone ask you to know our country two NATIONAL languages

You mean two FEDERAL OFFICIAL LANGUAGES.

[Leafless]

Clueless once again.

Then provide proof that they are indeed bigots.

Except for people to use English only when conducting business, English to be proclaimed the sole Official language of Ontario, no government services whatsoever in French outside Quebec, etc., etc., etc.

Absolutely.

Do you actually believe English Canada should be without collective cultural rights?

French Canada has them, so why shouldn't English Canada have them?

Apart from the fact that very idea would be a violation of the rights of English-speaking CANADIANS living in Quebec, I don't believe that's your position.

[Leafless]

They're not second class citizens.

The English are not oppressed in New Brunswick.

Your statement requires proof or better still, the implementation of a national referendum on the bilingualism issue.

Agree?

Such a "principle" does not exist.

Maybe not on paper, but I would say Quebec is living proof that it does exist.

[CANADIEN]

Still has nothing to do with with a language policies FORCED on Canadians by a Quebec French PM who worked for the province of Quebec and had just as much disrespect for English speaking Canadians as he did the Queen.

Except for the FACT it proves you wrong.

Well at least you have the common sense not to deny FACTS that prove official bilingualism was not born with Trudeau. Not all hope is lost.

Edited October 7, 2010 by CANADIEN

[g_bambino]

Still has nothing to do with with a language policies FORCED on Canadians by a Quebec French PM who worked for the province of Quebec and had just as much disrespect for English speaking Canadians as he did the Queen.

Never said it did. It was proof that you were wrong to call my claim about pre-Confederation bilingualism incorrect.

[CANADIEN]

You mean two FEDERAL OFFICIAL LANGUAGES.

I mean two NATIONAL LANGUAGES. Unlike you, I don't need to be reminded of what I wrote half of the time.

The fact that they are also official languages is simply a recognition of that reality.

Edited October 7, 2010 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

Then provide proof that they are indeed bigots.

You mean besides the proof YOU provided when posting their rant? All the proof that is needed is right there.

[CANADIEN]

I don't wish anything.

Except for people to use English only when conducting business, English to be proclaimed the sole Official language of Ontario, no government services whatsoever in French outside Quebec, etc., etc., etc.

Absolutely.

Once again, you prove you didn't even have a clue about what you're writing, but I digress.

Do you actually believe English Canada should be without collective cultural rights?

French Canada has them, so why shouldn't English Canada have them?

As you know full well, I have said often often that I believe in equal rights for all Canadians that someone who has a clue (that is, someone other than you) would not have to ask that question.

More importantly, English-speaking cultures in this great country of ours are under no threat, certainly not fromFrench-language signs outside of government offices or people having a conversation in French at Tim Horton's while on break. In other words, the banning of French (which is your real goal, we all know it) is even less needed that what the Quebec government has done. Nice though to see you would willingly imitate them (then of course deny that's what you're doing).

[bloodyminded]

Your statement requires proof or better still, the implementation of a national referendum on the bilingualism issue.

Agree?

No. You, first, assert that English Canadians ae oppressed; I counter that they are not.

Who do you really think is required to show proof of his claims here?

[Leafless]

Never said it did. It was proof that you were wrong to call my claim about pre-Confederation bilingualism incorrect.

Your claim is wrong.

The British were simply using a translation service to communicate with a group utilizing a foreign language.

[Leafless]

No. You, first, assert that English Canadians ae oppressed; I counter that they are not.

Who do you really think is required to show proof of his claims here?

Any government policy dictating language is naturally oppressive.

That is why individuals refer to government imposed language policies as Nazi style language policies.

Here is a single example:

The last I heard, the participation rates of the Administration of the House were 41% Anglophone, 59% Francophone (certainly not the usual quotes of 75% Anglophone, 25% Francophone); but that was a while back. Now, the Administration, which is subject to the Official Languages Act, has no way to definitely determine whether it is in compliance with Section 39.

[g_bambino]

Your claim is wrong.

The evidence says my claim is right.

[CANADIEN]

Your claim is wrong.

The British were simply using a translation service to communicate with a group utilizing a foreign language.

Yep, use of two languages in legislative debates and in court proceedings is equivalent to the use of a translation service.

Edited October 8, 2010 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

Any government policy dictating language is naturally oppressive.

Including the type of one-language only government policies you are advocating. Thanks for admitting you want to oppress people :lol:

[g_bambino]

Including the type of one-language only government policies you are advocating. Thanks for admitting you want to oppress people

Don't forget his desire to force people into linguistic ghettoes:

I believe in the territorial principle for Canada.

If you are French you go and live in Quebec.

If you are English speaking you go and live anywhere else in English speaking Canada.

I don't think Leafless' problem is that Canada's language laws were created by a dictator (which they weren't, of course, but that's not the point), it's that they were created by a dictator other than himself. He's a jealous little tyrant!

[sp]

Edited October 8, 2010 by g_bambino

[CANADIEN]

Don't forget his desire to force people into linguistic ghettoes:

I don't think Leafless' problem is that Canada's language laws were created by a dictator (which they weren't, of course, but that's not the point), it's that they were created by a dictator other than himself. He's a jealous little tyrant!

[sp]

Nah. His real problem is that he NEEDS for non-Christian non-English-speaking non-white people to be treated like inferior beings.

[jbg]

Including the type of one-language only government policies you are advocating. Thanks for admitting you want to oppress people :lol:

If you're advocating that Quebec be bilingual then your argument holds water. If not it's rank hypocrisy.

[CANADIEN]

If you're advocating that Quebec be bilingual then your argument holds water. If not it's rank hypocrisy.

I have said before what I think of Quebec's language laws. Stick to islamophobia, will you?

[jbg]

I have said before what I think of Quebec's language laws. Stick to islamophobia, will you?

1. I am not an Islamaphobe. In fact, I have repeatedly referenced my sincere admiration for Islamic and Arab accomplishments in the educational sector and the development of models of government.
   
2. I am not going to hunt for your views of Quebec's Angophobic language laws. Want to give me a link?
   
3. You started the personal attacks. I don't enjoy posting in this manner.