Ignatieff calls bilingualism the essence of Canada

[Machjo]

I agree, we should always strive to make things better, but I don't really consider many of the failings that we have to be embarrassing.

They are when we defend them. The reason the UNCHR criticized Ontario on this twice was because Ontario did not even try to conform its laws to the UN Human Rights Charter. In fact, it defended the injustice, not on moral grounds, but on traditional constitutional grounds. It defended the injustice and did not even bother to even try to defend its decision on a moral scale, but simply on a constitutional one, implying that the constitution is set in stone and incapable of improvement. Is that the kind of attitude we want from a government?

Well, it was elected, so I guess so. So it's our shame,Ontario's shame.

[Smallc]

In fact, it defended the injustice, not on moral grounds, but on traditional constitutional grounds.

The constitution can't be ignored, only changed. I don't think a change such as that would be all that difficult, but it may not be worth it.

[Machjo]

The constitution can't be ignored, only changed. I don't think a change such as that would be all that difficult, but it may not be worth it.

It's a matter of principle, though. Canada has signed the UN Declaration of Human Rights. If we sign it, we should abide by it. If we don't intend to sin it, then let's ask that our signature be removed from it. To keep our signature on it, violate it, and then defend the violation while still insisting on taking on an international role in defending human rights abroad is no less than hypocritical.

[Machjo]

In short, if we lose our principles, then how can we be moral leaders in the world.

The US is a good example when it comes to nuclear non-proliferation. Can it honestly be a leader when it has nukes itself?

Same applies with Canada. If we are violating religious rights (and the preference given in Ontario to one Faith school and not another is by its very definition), then how can Canada then go and speak to China about the religious rights of its people. It jsut makes Canada a laughing stock on the world stage just as the US is when it talks of nuclear non-proliferation.

[Smallc]

It's a matter of principle, though.

Yes, it is, and we can't pick and choose which parts of the Constitution we abide by.

[Machjo]

Yes, it is, and we can't pick and choose which parts of the Constitution we abide by.

I fully agree. But we would have thought that a country so bent on human rights would have been quick, once the violation had been pointed out, to modify the constitution to conform to the new awareness of this flaw. The fact that it not only did not do so, but that the provincial government even defended it as a matter of history and tradition, is shameful. No, we are not perfect, and will always violate one human right or another. But a decent society will correct itself quickly on the heels of the discovery. Instead, we shrugged our shoulders and went on as usual. The constitution still hasn't changed as a result of this.

And that reveals the true character of our nation today. A nation is not great for what it is, but for what it does.

[Smallc]

The fact that it not only did not do so, but that the provincial government even defended it as a matter of history and tradition, is shameful.

In a country such as ours, where human rights are important, ignoring history and tradition could be dangerous. While I don't agree with the law in Ontario, there is obviously a reason that it was put in place. I would hope it will be corrected at some point in the future, when people are ready for the change.

[Smallc]

And that reveals the true character of our nation today. A nation is not great for what it is, but for what it does.

Our country does a great many good things. If that is how our character is to be judged, than I am quite ready to accept the judgment.

[Machjo]

In a country such as ours, where human rights are important, ignoring history and tradition could be dangerous. While I don't agree with the law in Ontario, there is obviously a reason that it was put in place. I would hope it will be corrected at some point in the future, when people are ready for the change.

I suppose so. But in the mean time, is it appropriate for Canada to engage in discussing human rights abroad when we are aware of our own flaws? Remember the point about pulling the moat out of our own eyes so we can see better to pull the twig out of our neighbours'?

[Smallc]

Investigating further, it may be difficult to amend the section of the constitution, as it could be seen to affect all provinces.

93. The provinces control education, except that the feds can intervene to protect Roman Catholic schools in Ontario and separate schools in any province that existed at the time the province entered Confederation.

Until recently (when August brought it up), I wasn't even aware that this was in the Constitution.

Edited May 31, 2009 by Smallc

[Machjo]

Our country does a great many good things. If that is how our character is to be judged, than I am quite ready to accept the judgment.

I fully agree on that. I tend to be harder on myself than others, on my family than other families, on so on my province than other provinces, and my country than other countries. With my personality, if I were not Canadian, I'd likely not be criticizing Canada so much, but criticizing my own instead. I guess it's just in my character to be critical. But yes, I agree that we have done many great things. But it still angers me to see that we wil place blind tradition over human rights.

[Machjo]

Investigating further, it may be difficult to amend the section of the constitution, as it could be seen to affect all provinces.

93. The provinces control education, except that the feds can intervene to protect Roman Catholic schools in Ontario and separate schools in any province that existed at the time the province entered Confederation.

Until recently (when August brought it up), I wasn't even aware that this was in the Constitution.

Who wudda thunk our great constitution gave a special privileged status to one religion over others in matters of education, eh.

[Smallc]

It was written in 1867. It's going to have some dated aspects. Opening the Constitution can be dangerous though, so it may be best left as is. Perhaps the suggestion of John Tory should have been considered more seriously?

[Smallc]

.

Edited May 31, 2009 by Smallc

[Machjo]

It was written in 1867. It's going to have some dated aspects. Opening the Constitution can be dangerous though, so it may be best left as is. Perhaps the suggestion of John Tory should have been considered more seriously?

I realise it's dated, but a constitution is there to serve the people, not the other way around. And why should we fear opening the constitution to make it more congruent with justice? Why would it be dangerous?

[Smallc]

Because when you open the Constitution, everything is up for change.

[Argus]

. But as far as the official language of government policy goes, I think that's a fine balance. To get a job in the Quebec government, you must know the official language, and any other language is a nice asset to have. You have a duty as a Quebec public servant to be able to serve people in French. But if the person doesn't know it, you're still allowed to switch to their language if you can speak it.

Beyond that, however, the Quebec government doesn't waste its money in teaching any other language to its public servants. You're sexpected to meet the sandards before you get the job, and then the government satisfies itself with that. Efficient, in my opinion, and saves much money in pointless language courses for civil servants.

Because of Quebec's ethnic cleansing program, the percentage of Anglophones in Quebec has been steadily declining. Not very long ago, however, it was approximately the same percentage as the French percentage of the Canadian population. Yet while the federal government dedicates itself to ensuring that there was full reprsentation for all Canadians in hiring, so that at least a quarter of public servants were Francophones, virtually no anglophones were hired by the Quebec government. Nor has that changed since. Anglophone Quebecers are the most bilnigual group in Canada, but the Quebec government places no importance whatsoever on bilingualism. In fact, it was part of the law - not sure if it still is - that you cannot require biilngualism in a job, public or private, without special permission from the province.

So we see again how Anglphones bend over backwards to accomodate their minority, whilte Quebec, the home of most of Canada's Francophoones, spits on theirs.

And you think that's just fine.

[Machjo]

Because when you open the Constitution, everything is up for change.

So?

[Smallc]

It can be dangerous. I think it will have to be opened in the future, but I'm not sure if a change such as this is worth it. Also, even if the clause is removed that allows federal protection for the schools, the province can still continue as is. It's also worth mentioning that the clause actually doesn't seem to compel the federal government to protect the schools but rather it allows them to have the final say if the provinces tries to stop funding.

[Machjo]

Because of Quebec's ethnic cleansing program, the percentage of Anglophones in Quebec has been steadily declining. Not very long ago, however, it was approximately the same percentage as the French percentage of the Canadian population. Yet while the federal government dedicates itself to ensuring that there was full reprsentation for all Canadians in hiring, so that at least a quarter of public servants were Francophones, virtually no anglophones were hired by the Quebec government. Nor has that changed since. Anglophone Quebecers are the most bilnigual group in Canada, but the Quebec government places no importance whatsoever on bilingualism. In fact, it was part of the law - not sure if it still is - that you cannot require biilngualism in a job, public or private, without special permission from the province.

So we see again how Anglphones bend over backwards to accomodate their minority, whilte Quebec, the home of most of Canada's Francophoones, spits on theirs.

And you think that's just fine.

Argus, if you could read, you'd have noticed in my previous posts that I do agree that Quebec has gone too far with its Bill 101. That still doesn't change the fact that I also believe that Quebec is closer to the right balance than the rest of us. At the federal level, bilingualism has gone too far (translation, interpretation,training, etc. all cost money). At the provincial level, many provinces don't even have official languages, thus making the government's duty to provide services in this or that language ambiguous which thus leads to constant questions about whether it has a duty to provide services in this or that language and when. In Quebec, though I don't agree with all the details, I do agree with the principle at least of having a clearly defined language policy that leaves little ambiguity as to what the government's responsibility is: to guarantee services in French to anyone who wants to be served in French.

I should point out though that I think you're exaggerating too. English-speakers do get services in English where numers warrant. ThatI think is reasonable. Why should the Quebec governmenet be guaranteeing services in English in central Quebec where any anglophone living there is almost sure to know French anway?

I think Ontario could learn from that. Instead of making this or that town bilingual, why not just provide services in French where numbers warrant? The federal government could learn from Quebec on that front too. Why do we need bilingual staff in Victoria BC for instance. It's our tax dollars paying for this.

So though I don't agree with the details necessarily, I do agree with the principle of Quebec having but one official language. The other provinces could learn from that. It's more efficient and saves money.

[Machjo]

It can be dangerous. I think it will have to be opened in the future, but I'm not sure if a change such as this is worth it. Also, even if the clause is removed that allows federal protection for the schools, the province can still continue as is. It's also worth mentioning that the clause actually doesn't seem to compel the federal government to protect the schools but rather it allows them to have the final say if the provinces tries to stop funding.

I can agree with that. But then why does the federal government not speak out on this? Does it support such religious discrimination?

[benny]

The French language actually improved the English language which is all the more reason for Francophones to use it.

Improved!?

[Leafless]

Improved!?

Did you not read the post or are you simply trying to be a smart ass like a few other posters around here.

[Leafless]

I think Ontario could learn from that. Instead of making this or that town bilingual, why not just provide services in French where numbers warrant?

Because bilingualism which is basically federal type bilingualism is MUCH more than just about providing services in French.

So though I don't agree with the details necessarily, I do agree with the principle of Quebec having but one official language. The other provinces could learn from that. It's more efficient and saves money.

You do know what you are saying as it not in not in the federal governments interest to allow other provinces to have their majority English language made official.

We all know the federal government discriminates and oppresses relating to official languages.

[Machjo]

Because bilingualism which is basically federal type bilingualism is MUCH more than just about providing services in French.

You do know what you are saying as it not in not in the federal governments interest to allow other provinces to have their majority English language made official.

We all know the federal government discriminates and oppresses relating to official languages.

I don't know if I agree with everything you're saying here, but will simply state that federal Official Bilingualism as it currently stands is at least in part a reaction to the Quiet Revolution, an attempt on the part of the Federal Government to bribe Quebec into confederation.

I do believe though that we are totally out of line when generalize and try to blame all francophones for this. Heck, even many Quebecers oppose Official Bilingualism. I just don't think that fomenting inter-ethnic animosity is the way to go forward with this. Instead, we need to focus on the merits and demerits of the policy itself, and not try to put the blame on this or that ethnic group.