Russell by-law spat sparks bilingual study

[g_bambino]

All provinces would label themselves 'distinct' and develop their own constitution.

Each province already has its own constitution; they are co-sovereign with Ottawa, not subordinate to it, despite what those in the national capital would like to think. This is why the Supreme Court ruled in 1982 that the consent of the provinces should be sought before the amendments to the constitution were made, and it is why the separatists in Quebec think the province never "signed on" to the constitution, because Lesveque and his Cabinet was the sole provincial government that disapproved of the amendments being made. You go on about the Charter and what it gives to Quebec, but you seem to keep forgetting Quebec didn't approve of the damn thing when it was implemented.

Edited July 30, 2008 by g_bambino

[Leafless]

For examples, laws that would make English the "sole official language of business", discriminating against those who choose to conduct business in another language.

That is the whole idea of making the English language provincially official.

And it is not discriminating, as the de facto English language of Canada must be preserved to protect the functuality of the common language of commerce and communication.

And why should I have a problem with the absence of laws denying people their rights?

Because relating to the national commercial use of any language their are NO specific rights.

We know the drill... Bilingualism is racist, unilingualism is not (as long as it is in English). What a non-sense.

You mean you know the drill.

Bilingualism is not a language.

[Leafless]

You still don't get it, do you? The federal Parliament can use the notwithstanding clause only to protect its own laws.

Exactly, and as a duty to majority English speaking Canadians it should and can protect its own laws.

A federal plebiscite or referendum has no effect on provincial laws.

If a federal referendum was called to protect a right within the federal constitution relating to provincial discrimination, it would most certainly have an effect on provincial laws.

Actually, I don't view language issues as being race issues, but since YOU chose discribe them as such, I'm happy to use your terminology.

I know you don't view culture as part of race.

And, contrary to what you claim, equality of linguistic rights is not discriminatory.

Forceful propagation of ANY MINORITY language by government forces via charter, policy, act or whatever is DISCRIMINATION.

Parts of the Constitution that acknowledge French and English as official languages at the federal level and in New Brunswick are not discriminatory. Provincial laws and municipal by-laws that guarantees services in both English and French are not discriminatory.

Maybe you don't think so but many other Canadians do not appreciate having the will of Francophones and their minority language forced on them with a referendum on the issue. It is discriminatory.

The only laws in this country that discriminate on language matters are those of the Quebec government, because they make services in English nearly impossible to obtain and they limit the use of languages other than French in commerce and the workplace. Laws similar to those that would make one language "the sole official language of business".

I am glad you understand how Quebec linguistic racist linguistic policies are propagated to Ontario and other majority FREE English speaking provinces.

And you wonder why the English language and its users must be protected from this French linguist racist invasion via racist imposed policies.

I am not the only one who sees you are contradicting yourself.

From the 1860's to the 1980's, the federal government imposed on First Nations the residential school progams, whose primary objective was to force their children to learn English and abandon their own Canadian languages. Before the educational rights of Canadians were recognized in 1982, most provincial government had at one point or another laws specifically forbidding the use of French as the medium of education in schools in French-speaking communities.

Do you think that was a good thing?

Yes I think it was a good thing.

You don't expect the feds to spend wads of money to keep children ignorant and not suited for modern society, do you?

[Leafless]

You go on about the Charter and what it gives to Quebec, but you seem to keep forgetting Quebec didn't approve of the damn thing when it was implemented.

All the more reason the charter should have been scrapped initially.

Unfortunately whether Quebec approved or not is elementary as the majority of other provinces did approve of the constitution.

As far as I know Quebecers are Canadian citizens and therefore must abide by our constitution or separate.

Anyways Quebec recognizes the constitution as proven back quite a while ago:

Now comes the weird part.

In its continuing campaign to make Quebec a bastion of Frenchness in a sea of English speakers, the provincial government wants that same Constitution it does not recognize to be amended. Since 1867, authority over public schools in Canada has been split between Catholic and Protestant school boards. Quebec insists that it makes more sense today to use language rather than religion to administer the schools.

So to recognize separate French and English school boards, Quebec's Premier, Lucien Bouchard, asked Canada's Parliament for action to amend the rejected Constitution.

Wacky as that sounds, Prime Minister Jean Chretien went along, not wanting to miss an opportunity to show Quebeckers how flexible Canada's Constitution can be. After the House of Commons approved the change two weeks ago, Mr. Chretien smiled like the Cheshire cat: ''We succeeded in the impossible,'' he remarked. ''We squared the circle.''

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...752C1A961958260

[Leafless]

You know what Canadien, you might and very well could be worth talking to if you could just get over your very annoying habit of claiming to know what everyone else is thinking and feeling. I put it to you that you actually don't know shit about what other posters are thinking and are merely projecting your desire upon them.

Especially not recognizing the fact that forcing English speaking Canadians to accept the 'linguistic will of Francophones ' by policy is unjust, racially discriminatory, irresponsible and totally unacceptable.

Everyone knows this but socialist politicians who have their hands out to be at some point federally awarded for their unjust efforts thereby discriminating against the Canadian citizens who have built provinces, creating jobs, utilizing the majority English 'de facto' language of Canada.

[CANADIEN]

For examples, laws that would make English the "sole official language of business", discriminating against those who choose to conduct business in another language.

That is the whole idea of making the English language provincially official.

So, the whole point is making English the "sole official language of business", or commerce. A concept created by you, on which you never give details because you hope others won't see what it means.

No more. Enough playing the ostrich. Let's see what it really means.

Does it mean that English will be mandatory on commercial signs? YES or NO

If the answer is yes, will languages other than English will be permitted on commercial signs? YES or NO

If they are permitted, will it be mandatory that the English language be predominent? YES or NO

Don't worry if you don't answer. I'll keep asking these three questions until you answer them.

Edited July 31, 2008 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

I know you don't view culture as part of race.

Because it isn't.

I am glad you understand how Quebec linguistic racist linguistic policies are propagated to Ontario and other majority FREE English speaking provinces.

I am glad to see once again that you cannot read. Edited July 31, 2008 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

From the 1860's to the 1980's, the federal government imposed on First Nations the residential school progams, whose primary objective was to force their children to learn English and abandon their own Canadian languages. Before the educational rights of Canadians were recognized in 1982, most provincial government had at one point or another laws specifically forbidding the use of French as the medium of education in schools in French-speaking communities.

Do you think that was a good thing?

Yes I think it was a good thing.

Thanks for confirming that your definition of "freedom to speak English" includes forcing others to be educated in it.

You don't expect the feds to spend wads of money to keep children ignorant and not suited for modern society, do you?

You don't get it, as usual. Children can be educated in a language other than English and still learn enough of it. It is not a coincidence that younger Franco-Ontarians, who are educated in French, speak and write both English and French better than most of their parents and grandparents.

Mind you, your statement gives me a great idea. I shoud demand that the government pay me back the three cents from my taxes that were wasted trying to rid YOU of your ignorance.

[Leafless]

So, the whole point is making English the "sole official language of business", or commerce. A concept created by you, on which you never give details because you hope others won't see what it means.

It is not a concept created by me but a racially discriminatory concept initiated by Quebec.

No more. Enough playing the ostrich. Let's see what it really means.

Does it mean that English will be mandatory on commercial signs? YES or NO

If the answer is yes, will languages other than English will be permitted on commercial signs? YES or NO

If they are permitted, will it be mandatory that the English language be predominent? YES or NO

Don't worry if you don't answer. I'll keep asking these three questions until you answer them.

If Francophone groups continue to impose their French language via Quebec style racist policies in provinces outside of Quebec where no current language policies exist, then yes, the majority de-facto English language and its users must be protected by provincial law.

And if English is made 'provincially official' then yes it will be the 'official language of commerce' and will be the ONLY language of commerce.

You are confused between what provincially constitutes majority vs. minority language rights.

They ARE NOT federal rights.

You don't understand their was NO federal or provincial legislation that initially created the English language as the national de-facto language of Canada.

[Leafless]

Because it isn't.

Culture is a compenent of race.

I am glad to see once again that you cannot read.

Any kind of provincial MINORITY forced language policy is a Quebec style racist language policy.

Do you think the majority English population of Ontario is going to tolerate being trampled on by a Quebec style racist language policy implemented by corrupt socialists that reflect only 'the will' of Francophones?

[Leafless]

Thanks for confirming that your definition of "freedom to speak English" includes forcing others to be educated in it.

Thanks for confirming that the federal government has no business in the 'thankless' Canadian language game.

You don't get it, as usual. Children can be educated in a language other than English and still learn enough of it. It is not a coincidence that younger Franco-Ontarians, who are educated in French, speak and write both English and French better than most of their parents and grandparents.

Language should be a private matter and not dragging in the tax payers of Ontario to entertain and subsidize minority Francophone fantasies.

Mind you, your statement gives me a great idea. I shoud demand that the government pay me back the three cents from my taxes that were wasted trying to rid YOU of your ignorance.

Say that while looking at yourself in the mirror.

[g_bambino]

It is not a concept created by me but a racially discriminatory concept initiated by Quebec.

Even if Quebec initated it, you certainly are supporting it.

Culture is a compenent of race.

I know you believe this to be true (i.e. your fantastical "white culture"), however, you remain incorrect. Neither culture nor language is tied to race. Only when you accept this, and stop ranting about inanities like "racist language policies" could we continue with a logical, rational discussion. I'm not, however, holding my breath.

[CANADIEN]

It is not a concept created by me but a racially discriminatory concept initiated by Quebec.

Which you support as long as the word French is replaced by English.

And if English is made 'provincially official' then yes it will be the 'official language of commerce' and will be the ONLY language of commerce.

Thank you so very much for confirming yourself what was already evident. You want no other language than English in commerce. No signs with French on them in Hearst, no Chinese on signs in Toronto's Chinatown. No Italian on signs at Italian restaurants in Kitchener.

Even the Quebec government had to back down on that one. Call them any name you want. You are no better.

Mind you, I am still curious... would Ontario business even be allowed to use languages other than English when communicating with foreign clients? and how about the language of private workplaces?.

[CANADIEN]

Language should be a private matter

Language is a private matter, as long as it is English. If not, then they should be laws prohibiting its use in commerce. Whatever.

Say that while looking at yourself in the mirror.

I did, and I still think it.

[Leafless]

Even if Quebec initated it, you certainly are supporting it.

I do not support imposed, forced language policies of any kind.

But if you consider protecting the majority English language from a minority French linguistic attack via imposed language policies, then I do support protecting users of the de-facto majority English language utilizing language policies or similar.

You must be a fool not to agree.

I know you believe this to be true (i.e. your fantastical "white culture"), however, you remain incorrect. Neither culture nor language is tied to race. Only when you accept this, and stop ranting about inanities like "racist language policies" could we continue with a logical, rational discussion. I'm not, however, holding my breath.

Another bambino favourite type post...linkless and void of any type of proof to support his views.

Culture and language are most certainly tied to race.

Unlike Blacks who cannot do much relating to skin colour, Francophones have chosen to be a linguistic minority in Canada and refused to assimilate.

The following quote defines a minority group based on ethnicity and race:

ETHNICITY AND RACE: GENERAL INDEXES

MINORITY GROUP = A group typically numerically inferior to the rest of the population of a state, in a non-dominant position, whose members--being nationals of the state-- possess ethnic, religious, or linguistic characteristics distinguishing them from the rest of the population. Typically, members of a minority group share a sense of solidarity and a desire to preserve their culture, traditions, religion, or language. A minority group can sometimes be a numerical majority in a minority group position. Minority group status is not a matter of numbers; it is determined by the presence of distinguishing features such as discrimination. Central features characterizing a minority group are:

The members of a minority group suffer various disadvantages at the hand of another group;

A minority group is identified by group characteristics that are socially visible;

A minority is a self-conscious group with a strong sense of "oneness";

People usually do not become members of a minority group voluntarily; they are born into it;

By choice or necessity, members of a minority group tend to marry within the group."

http://www.trinity.edu/~mkearl/race.html

Definition of ethnic group:

An ethnic group is a group of human beings whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of preferential endogamy and/or a presumed or real common ancestry.[1][2] Ethnic identity is further marked by the recognition from others of a group's distinctiveness[3] and by common cultural, linguistic, religious, behavioral or biological traits.[1][4]

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

[CANADIEN]

I do not support imposed, forced language policies of any kind.

I do support protecting users of the de-facto majority English language utilizing language policies or similar.

if English is made 'provincially official' then yes it will be the 'official language of commerce' and will be the ONLY language of commerce.

Your own words.

Francophones have chosen to be a linguistic minority in Canada and refused to assimilate.

As a Canadian, I don't need to assimilate, I don't want to assimilate, and the days of forced assimilation are over. You dpn't like it? Your problem.

[Leafless]

Language is a private matter, as long as it is English.

There is no need to be sarcastic.

The English language freely propagated itself and was freely chosen as the majority language of commerce and common communication by the citizens of Canada.

If not, then they should be laws prohibiting its use in commerce. Whatever.

There is NO "if not" about it as there were never, to date, any imposed language policies forcing the use of the English language in Canada.

You must be confused in not realizing Canada's freely established de-facto national language is Canada's chosen language.

[Leafless]

Your own words.

Smart ass quoted nonsensical excerpts are meaningless.

As a Canadian, I don't need to assimilate, I don't want to assimilate, and the days of forced assimilation are over. You dpn't like it? Your problem.

Sure isn't my problem.

But I totally agree with you that FORCED assimilation SHOULD be over, even though it is the minority that is doing the forcing.

[CANADIEN]

There is no need to be sarcastic.

No sarcams, just pointing out your double standard.

There is NO "if not" about it as there were never, to date, any imposed language policies forcing the use of the English language in Canada.

You say that residential schools and policies prohibiting education in French were good things, then you say these policies never existed. whatever

[CANADIEN]

Smart ass quoted nonsensical excerpts are meaningless.

They're your words.

But I totally agree with you that FORCED assimilation SHOULD be over (...)

So forced assimliation (residential schools, closing of French-language schools outside Quebec was a good thing, but it should be over now... Make up your mind.

even though it is the minority that is doing the forcing.

I am waiting to know the number of English-speaking Ontarians who abandon English for french every year.

[g_bambino]

I do not support imposed, forced language policies of any kind.

But if you consider protecting the majority English language from a minority French linguistic attack via imposed language policies, then I do support protecting users of the de-facto majority English language utilizing language policies or similar.

So, your solution is to impose on them what they "impose" on you? You do understand that's how four-year-olds operate, right?

You must be a fool not to agree.

Or a mature adult.

Another bambino favourite type post...linkless and void of any type of proof to support his views.

Culture and language are most certainly tied to race.

It's not up to me to prove a negative; it's up to you to prove your affirmative claim. However, you cannot. You cannot tell the man of African descent who was born in Scotland and speaks like a Scotsman that his race is tied to his culture. Ditto for the Caucasian Jamaican, or the third generation Chinese-Canadian.

Unlike Blacks who cannot do much relating to skin colour, Francophones have chosen to be a linguistic minority in Canada and refused to assimilate.

Indeed they are unlike "blacks"; and you've pointed out why: race is biological, language is not.

The following quote defines a minority group based on ethnicity and race:

http://www.trinity.edu/~mkearl/race.html

Definition of ethnic group:

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

Ethicitiy is not race either.

[g_bambino]

Smart ass quoted nonsensical excerpts are meaningless.

Well, at least you now accept that your own words are nonsensical and meaningless. Finally!

[Leafless]

They're your words.

Words used out of context are meaningless.

So forced assimliation (residential schools, closing of French-language schools outside Quebec was a good thing, but it should be over now... Make up your mind.

You don't want democratic government.

You want anarchy.

I am waiting to know the number of English-speaking Ontarians who abandon English for french every year.

What does that have to do with rebelling against democratic rule?

[CANADIEN]

Words used out of context are meaningless.

Usual leafless. Confronted with what you say, you find a way to deny it. Won't work.

You don't want democratic government.

You want anarchy.

What you call democracy is nothing more than tyranny and violation of the rights of other.

What does that have to do with rebelling against democratic rule?

Less we forget, the rights of others are a form of rebellion... Whatever.

You claim that English-speaking Ontarians are being assimilated. Assimilation is one abandoning his language or culture for another one. So, you have an idea of how many English-speaking Ontarians have switched to French, or as usual you don't have a clue what you're whining about?

[Leafless]

So, your solution is to impose on them what they "impose" on you? You do understand that's how four-year-olds operate, right?

We have a federal and provincial governments that are supposed to prevent this kind of situation from occurring initially. Looks like the are incapable of doing their job.

Or a mature adult.

A mature adult that advocates anarchy?

It's not up to me to prove a negative; it's up to you to prove your affirmative claim. However, you cannot. You cannot tell the man of African descent who was born in Scotland and speaks like a Scotsman that his race is tied to his culture. Ditto for the Caucasian Jamaican, or the third generation Chinese-Canadian.

You are describing hybrids who nevertheless are still racially interconnected to a single or several racial components.

Indeed they are unlike "blacks"; and you've pointed out why: race is biological, language is not.

Ethicitiy is not race either.

Race is not only confined to skin colour.

Skin colour is only a single component of race.

The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines race as : 1. each of the divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics.

2. A tribe, nation, etc., regarded as a distinct ETHNIC stock.

3. the fact or concept of division into races (discrimination based on race).

4. a genus, species, breed, or variety of animals, plants or micro-organisms.

5. a group of persons, animals or plants connected by common descsent.

6 . any great division of living creatures ( the feathered race, the four footed race).

7. descent; kindred (of noble race; separate in language and race).

8. a class of persons etc. with som common feature.

Looks like you are out to lunch.