Feds promoting discrimination

[normanchateau]

If Harper had any guts he would be promoting a revolution rather than being held hostage to the Liberal/Quebec game.

I think the name of the game is majority, not Liberal. Mulroney pandered to Quebec as well as any subsequent Liberal Prime Minister. That's how he won the only Conservative majority in almost half a century.

Harper will also spend billions pandering to Quebec despite his negative views on bilingualism in 2001. Why would you expect Harper to be more principled or revolutionary now that he's in government?

[Sean Hayward]

Screw bilingualism. It's just a waste of money. :angry:

Here's an idea: Let's let the French be French and let the English be English.

Ah! That's the whole point of bilingualism: let the French be French and let the English be English. I find it hard to express my frustration. There is such misunderstanding here. If that's not what you think official bilingualism is, then what do you think it is? Can someone on the anti-bilingualism side please clearly explain what they think official bilingualism is, why they are opposed, and what their proposed alternative is. That way we can see if there really is a disagreement here or if this is just a mutual misunderstanding. The following questions are a starting point. Are you opposed to the concept of a government having official languages? If so, what is your alternative? If not, are you opposed to the federal government providing services in French? If so, how do you deal with the 20% plus of Canadians who primarily speak French?

[normanchateau]

Screw bilingualism. It's just a waste of money.

"It is simply difficult – extremely difficult – for someone to become bilingual in a country that is not. And make no mistake. Canada is not a bilingual country. In fact it less bilingual today than it has ever been... So there you have it. As a religion, bilingualism is the god that failed. It has led to no fairness, produced no unity and cost Canadian taxpayers untold millions."

- Stephen Harper on bilingualism, Calgary Sun, May 6th 2001.

Sounds like MontyBurns and Stephen Harper agree.

[Borg]

Ah! That's the whole point of bilingualism: let the French be French and let the English be English. I find it hard to express my frustration. There is such misunderstanding here. If that's not what you think official bilingualism is, then what do you think it is?

Official bilingualism is the refusal of federal and some provincial governments to hire Anglo only employees - even when they seldom come in contact with a franco.

Official bilingualism has caused people in the rest of canada to be forced to learn a language if they want to work in nearly every government department.

It has caused new sign laws to be brought to the communities in eastern ontario and created enemies of some who were once friends.

It has caused problems with the naming of a dammned arena - franco versus Anglo.

Schitzen, it causes problems every day some where - try getting promoted in a fed service without it - even if you are hands down the better candidate.

It has caused huge waste - the queens printer routinely prints translated documents that are then never used,

It has cause huge cost to industry with dual package printing.

It has caused some hack - second rate - never heard of franco singer to claim discrimination because his song was not played on national television

And the beat goes on ......

Can someone on the anti-bilingualism side please clearly explain what they think official bilingualism is, why they are opposed, and what their proposed alternative is.

What is it? A pandering to a province that does nothng but cost this country

Opposed - well, if an Anglo living in kebec is not allowed to advertise in the language of his choice .... hmmm - that is a start. Try to get a gov job - not likely. Money to kebec and nothing in return. These are only some of my reasons.

Alternative? Kill it. Speak french in kebec if you want - the rest of canada speaks English. Cheaper and easier - if kebec wants into the business game they can come along or take their tent and go home.

That way we can see if there really is a disagreement here or if this is just a mutual misunderstanding. The following questions are a starting point. Are you opposed to the concept of a government having official languages?

Nope - if kebec can have french then the rest of canada can have English. No misunderstanding - it is an expensive ploy that has divided this country for years and will continue to do so. Brought upon us by that low life trudeau - a man so hated west of the ontario Manitoba border that many would line up to piss on his grave. More would possibly pay for the privilige.

If so, what is your alternative?

Alternative. Build a fence - give them their independence. Do not allow them to work in this country or enter it without a passport. Make them clear customs. Want to live in canada - learn English. Both sides would be happier in the long run and we could dump expensive and wasteful mandatory french, which in the end is going to get far worse in my life time (yours too).

If not, are you opposed to the federal government providing services in French?

Yes - except within the confines of kebec

If so, how do you deal with the 20% plus of Canadians who primarily speak French?

Learn English to live in canada or stay in kebec and speak french - the choice is their's.

Numerous more reasons - just not worth the effort to research it further.

I think you will find the above to be far more common than many are willing to admit due to political correctness - you asked - there ya' go.

Borg

Edited March 25, 2008 by Borg

[Leafless]

I think the name of the game is majority, not Liberal. Mulroney pandered to Quebec as well as any subsequent Liberal Prime Minister. That's how he won the only Conservative majority in almost half a century.

Why shoudn't he, Mulroney is a Quebecer.

Harper will also spend billions pandering to Quebec despite his negative views on bilingualism in 2001. Why would you expect Harper to be more principled or revolutionary now that he's in government?

The liberals (basically in the past a Quebec party) have developed and devised a political system built on culture rather than Canadianism and Harper is now forced to cater to that Liberal political ideology if he wishes to continue to play dysfunctional Canadian politics.

I gather he chooses to cater to power which includes playing dysfunctional Canadian politics.

I truly am disappointed in Harper and at least wish he would support a referendum on whether or not Canadians wish to retain Quebec in confederation, vs. promoting a revolution to free Canada of this evil province.

[Sean Hayward]

There is a difference between an expansive program of official bilingualism, like what seems to be the policy of the federal government right now, and a more limited policy, which I am in favour of. All this business with restrictive sign laws, government jobs disproportionately going to francophones, and ridiculous packaging requirements, I am totally opposed to. Those I would consider "expansive official bilingualism". What I am arguing for, a "limited official bilingualism", is that the federal government, governing a population with more than 20% francophones, should provide services in English where there is SIGNIFICANT DEMAND and in French where there is SIGNIFICANT DEMAND.

Holding a referendum in the rest of Canada on whether to keep Quebec in Canada is a good idea. I am sure it would be a victory for the keeping Quebec side, but it would give the people of English Canada a chance to express their opinion. It would confirm that Quebec is not the only voice to be heard in this debate over what Canada is.

[MontyBurns]

If so, how do you deal with the 20% plus of Canadians who primarily speak French?

We get some interpreters to figure out what social programs they are whining about.

[MontyBurns]

There is a difference between an expansive program of official bilingualism, like what seems to be the policy of the federal government right now, and a more limited policy, which I am in favour of. All this business with restrictive sign laws, government jobs disproportionately going to francophones, and ridiculous packaging requirements, I am totally opposed to. Those I would consider "expansive official bilingualism". What I am arguing for, a "limited official bilingualism", is that the federal government, governing a population with more than 20% francophones, should provide services in English where there is SIGNIFICANT DEMAND and in French where there is SIGNIFICANT DEMAND.

These are my thoughts exactly. Couldn't agree with you more.

[normanchateau]

I truly am disappointed in Harper...

Don't be disappointed. Rationalize. It's the Conservative way to deal with cognitive dissonance. Rationalization is also an excellent defense mechanism.

Whenever Harper does something you would have completely opposed if it were Martin or Chretien or Trudeau, just tell yourself that this is something Harper needs to do in order to win a majority. Then convince yourself that once he has a majority, he will show his true colours even though it means he'll then stand no chance of ever being re-elected.

[MontyBurns]

"It is simply difficult – extremely difficult – for someone to become bilingual in a country that is not. And make no mistake. Canada is not a bilingual country. In fact it less bilingual today than it has ever been... So there you have it. As a religion, bilingualism is the god that failed. It has led to no fairness, produced no unity and cost Canadian taxpayers untold millions."

- Stephen Harper on bilingualism, Calgary Sun, May 6th 2001.

Sounds like MontyBurns and Stephen Harper agree.

I do agree with Harper and the above statement. Don't you?

[Sean Hayward]

I do agree with Harper and the above statement. Don't you?

Once again, it depends what he means by "bilingualism". Does he mean that not every Canadian speaks both official languages? Then obviously any knowledgeable person would agree. I do agree that its seems to have produced no unity and had a considerable financial cost, but to reverse it now would be fatal for national unity. I don't know what he means when he says it has "produced no fairness", but then again I am not a member of the special political group, generally residing west of the Ontario-Manitoba border, that sees how not providing services in French to French-speaking Canadians is fair.

[Oleg Bach]

Once again, it depends what he means by "bilingualism". Does he mean that not every Canadian speaks both official languages? Then obviously any knowledgeable person would agree. I do agree that its seems to have produced no unity and had a considerable financial cost, but to reverse it now would be fatal for national unity. I don't know what he means when he says it has "produced no fairness", but then again I am not a member of the special political group, generally residing west of the Ontario-Manitoba border, that sees how not providing services in French to French-speaking Canadians is fair.

Every body seems to play one against the other..recently...a young guy got stabbed just for saying hello in a civlized manner - while on a public bus..so the culture that has been created is a non-culture and one that is de-evolving. IF you do what is right and act in a civil and kind manner - it is considered a form of disrespect..so now when I walk down the street I STILL nod hello to what appears to be a scarey black guy...usually they are shocked that you are polite - and they do not know how to react - welcome to the mayhem that is devide and conquer. As for the French problem - what do you expect sticking a French nation right in the middle of what was an Anglo nation - once the battle of the Plains of Abraham was over and the french were vanquished - they should have stayed vanquished..but NO...we gave them that misplaced Christian sympathy and now we have problems - much like the problems we will have with the Muslims who are contesting our traditions and are now allowed to wear their religious hats while driving our buses...what ever happened to rule by iron fist - it works.

[Sean Hayward]

Every body seems to play one against the other..recently...a young guy got stabbed just for saying hello in a civlized manner - while on a public bus..so the culture that has been created is a non-culture and one that is de-evolving. IF you do what is right and act in a civil and kind manner - it is considered a form of disrespect..so now when I walk down the street I STILL nod hello to what appears to be a scarey black guy...usually they are shocked that you are polite - and they do not know how to react - welcome to the mayhem that is devide and conquer. As for the French problem - what do you expect sticking a French nation right in the middle of what was an Anglo nation - once the battle of the Plains of Abraham was over and the french were vanquished - they should have stayed vanquished..but NO...we gave them that misplaced Christian sympathy and now we have problems - much like the problems we will have with the Muslims who are contesting our traditions and are now allowed to wear their religious hats while driving our buses...what ever happened to rule by iron fist - it works.

You say someone "stuck a French nation right in the middle of an English nation". I think even a cursory look at any reputable account of the history of Canada would show that the French nation (Quebec) was there long before most of the English nation (Canada). I assume the rest of your post about disrespect, misplaced christian sympathy and rule by iron fist is just a frustrated rant demanding no response.

[Oleg Bach]

You say someone "stuck a French nation right in the middle of an English nation". I think even a cursory look at any reputable account of the history of Canada would show that the French nation (Quebec) was there long before most of the English nation (Canada). I assume the rest of your post about disrespect, misplaced christian sympathy and rule by iron fist is just a frustrated rant demanding no response.

We know that! Quebec City and New Orleans are prime examples of the old orignal culture...BUT my point was once you vanquish and ememy you whip out the culture - you don't pussy foot around and stick a nation like a thorn in the the forhead of the victor...war is war and if you are going to bother to fight it - you win and destroy the enemy completely culturally - look at Iraq - once the interlopers are out of their it will return to what it has always been - The Americans and their fellow adventuring fools should have destroy the place utterly - but no..they just played around clawing up profits...much like Quebec...just like Iraq...either destroy the culture or leave it alone and get your ass out of their - If Quebec should exist - then - let it exist fully as a Country!

Doing a bit of word study, I discovered that when they declared Quebec a nation within a nation - they were insulting the French and the French did not get it...NATION - means extended familiar culture - or family! COUNTRY...Means actual territory..so they pandered to Quebec calling it a nation - what they really were saying is the French in Quebec are but tenants - or a family within a family..which is a lie..they are not our family and we are not theirs....to declare them an actual Country within a country would be granting them real real estate title...Quebec is a country within a country and that is the problem - it does not work - either wipe out the french culture or give them their country back - calling them a family or family is a hoax.

[normanchateau]

I do agree with Harper and the above statement. Don't you?

Sounds like Harper does not agree with his own statement or he'd be rejecting Lord's recommendations on bilingualism. I predict he'll spend billions implementing them. It's called vote buying which apparently is good when Conservatives do it but bad when Liberals do it.

[MontyBurns]

Sounds like Harper does not agree with his own statement or he'd be rejecting Lord's recommendations on bilingualism. I predict he'll spend billions implementing them. It's called vote buying which apparently is good when Conservatives do it but bad when Liberals do it.

I hope he doesn't inplement them.

[Sean Hayward]

We know that! Quebec City and New Orleans are prime examples of the old orignal culture...BUT my point was once you vanquish and ememy you whip out the culture - you don't pussy foot around and stick a nation like a thorn in the the forhead of the victor...war is war and if you are going to bother to fight it - you win and destroy the enemy completely culturally - look at Iraq - once the interlopers are out of their it will return to what it has always been - The Americans and their fellow adventuring fools should have destroy the place utterly - but no..they just played around clawing up profits...much like Quebec...just like Iraq...either destroy the culture or leave it alone and get your ass out of their - If Quebec should exist - then - let it exist fully as a Country!

Doing a bit of word study, I discovered that when they declared Quebec a nation within a nation - they were insulting the French and the French did not get it...NATION - means extended familiar culture - or family! COUNTRY...Means actual territory..so they pandered to Quebec calling it a nation - what they really were saying is the French in Quebec are but tenants - or a family within a family..which is a lie..they are not our family and we are not theirs....to declare them an actual Country within a country would be granting them real real estate title...Quebec is a country within a country and that is the problem - it does not work - either wipe out the french culture or give them their country back - calling them a family or family is a hoax.

Sounds a lot like the PQ/BQ philosophy. Sometimes I too believe that Quebec should not remain within Canada, but there is the little fact that the Quebecers themselves voted against seperation twice.

[Leafless]

Sounds a lot like the PQ/BQ philosophy. Sometimes I too believe that Quebec should not remain within Canada,

The Quebec vote on separation was not about breaking clean from Canada, but was about achieving sovereignty in the context of a negotiated relationship with the rest of Canada. Their provincial government, in posing the question of sovereignty on the referendum, wanted a political relationship in which Quebeckers would retain Canadian citizenship, in which Canadian currency would remain the same, and in which the present commercial relationships would be retained.

So in fact they don't really want to separate from Canada, they just want all the goodies of an independent country while remaining Canadian.

So in fact they were not risking nothing, in their view, with their referendum on separation, but failed to realize they would probably never be successful at that attempt.

but there is the little fact that the Quebecers themselves voted against seperation twice.

Their are diiferent kinds of Quebecers and if all were Quebecois, they probably would have been successful, with the referendum and possibly nothing else.

That 95' referendum was close anyways with 49.4% voting 'yes' and 50.6% voting 'no', not that it really meant anything.

[Sean Hayward]

But you are only furthering my point that Quebecers don't want seperation because they voted against a proposal that wouldn't even have been full seperation. So if the proposal was for complete seperation, the level of support would have been even less. In my opinion, the best solution to the question of Quebec is probably something along the lines of the 1980 referendum proposal, seperation with economic union.

[Leafless]

In my opinion, the best solution to the question of Quebec is probably something along the lines of the 1980 referendum proposal, seperation with economic union.

Do you realize how silly you sound.

Why only partially fracture Canada with Quebec's absolutely ridiculous traitorous demands.

Why not give all provinces the option of becoming their own country and get it over with.

If the federal government lacks the fortitude to set Quebec straight , then Canada is lost, regardless.

Edited March 28, 2008 by Leafless

[seabee]

Question:

What do you men exactly by "... to set Quebec straight"?

And what means are to be used to achieve this goal, whatever it means?

[guyser]

And what means are to be used to achieve this goal, whatever it means?

Probably a lot of pounding on the keyboard , ranting against unseen boogie men.....that sort of stuff.

IOW, bupkiss

[Leafless]

Question:

What do you men exactly by "... to set Quebec straight"?

And what means are to be used to achieve this goal, whatever it means?

Think China and Tibet.

[Sean Hayward]

Do you realize how silly you sound.

Why only partially fracture Canada with Quebec's absolutely ridiculous traitorous demands.

Why not give all provinces the option of becoming their own country and get it over with.

If the federal government lacks the fortitude to set Quebec straight , then Canada is lost, regardless.

No I do not realize how silly I sound. I don't see how "Quebec's demands" are "ridiculously traitorous". The economic union would benefit both Quebec and Canada. And what do you mean by "set Quebec straight"?

Why not give all provinces the option of becoming their own country? First of all, they do have that option, if they can pass a referendum. Second, with any province other than Quebec, the answer would be an overwhelming NO.

[Leafless]

No I do not realize how silly I sound. I don't see how "Quebec's demands" are "ridiculously traitorous". The economic union would benefit both Quebec and Canada.

How can a relationship with an 'have not province' be beneficial to Canada and who says the remaining provinces would not want their own independence in the event of a soverign Quebec?

Do you actually think other Canadian provinces would accept catering to a renegade province with the power of a country but is not?

And what do you mean by "set Quebec straight"?

Tell them outright there is no mechanism to deal with their traitorous demands and if they unilaterally separate, send in the military.

Why not give all provinces the option of becoming their own country? First of all, they do have that option, if they can pass a referendum.

NO, THEY DO NOT.

If you are certain of this please prove it.

Second, with any province other than Quebec, the answer would be an overwhelming NO.

Few other provinces would want to play second fiddle to 'La Belle Province'.

But if you certain your statement is correct, prove it?

This is why we need referendums in this country, to answer volatile questions that need an answer.