Up the Revolution!

[Bob]

How about an unilingual English-speaking judge? No more and no less ridiculous, if English and French have the same status in this country.

From the perspective of official bilingualism in this country, you're right. But at the end of the day, about 80% of Canadians have stronger English than they do French. So although both languages are equal on paper, they're not equal in terms of their usage or importance to Canada at the broadest level. You need to concede that.

The fact you miss on some of the pearls some of them use to describe French-speaking Canadians aside (my personal favorite is to have been compared to a cancer)... opposition to equal status for french and English in Cabnada is opposition to the rights of french-speaking Canadians and to their identity as Canadians... call it whatever you want, but when someone is opposed to my rights and to my identity, they're opposed to me.

I understand. I myself have some prejudices towards French-Canadians, although they are accurate. We're getting into the complicated subject of national identity as it is defined in Canada, and it's not something I really want to get into at the moment. Anyways, I completely understand your sentiment towards those that oppose your self-identification as a) French-Canadian. Still, who exactly is it that is opposed to your rights (do you mean national rights?)? All the opposition I'm familiar with is the rejection of a divided sense of national identity in Canada, with the French-Canadian nation on one side, and the rest of Canada on the other. Personally, I hold reservations about the legitimacy of French-Canadian identity as distinct and equal to the "other" Canadian identity. To me, I think it is largely fake and exploited as a political cottage industry that has been successfully pimped out to garner political support (votes) and to steal money from the Federal Government.

Ooops, looks like I got into it, after all...

[betsy]

Maybe he's really referring to what goes on on in his boudoir LOL

[Scotty]

If I was a French speaking Canadian and I had to go into court knowing my defense had to depend on a Translator to get my defense across with the proper legal wording I would pretty nervous that is for sure.

You don't go to your trials at the Supreme Court. They're very tedious affairs of technical legal arguments about the case.

[Scotty]

there would be no problem finding enough of them.

Yeah, okay, sure.

Okay, we need a new Surpreme Court Judge from BC. You're right, no problem! We have three semi-bilingual judges to choose from! That's plenty!

I can't imagine what I was thinking.

to you. Not to those with a clue.

Ohmygod! I'm clueless? You're so clever! What an imaginative insult! And this isn't even your first language!

Edited April 18, 2011 by Scotty

[Scotty]

That's not what I meant. Unless of course, you're referring to French-only speakers. I certainly think a French-only judge on the Supreme Court would be quite ridiculous. I don't think the critics of the proposed law to require Supreme Court judges be bilingual have anything against Francophones, but they are simply opposed to French being given official status in Canada. I'm ambivalent about the issue, myself. I just think that Canada should do a lot more to improve the emphasis on bilingualism in school. The standards for high-school graduation, for example (outside of Quebec and other French communities), are generally quite low with respect to French language requirements. If we're going to declare ourselves as bilingual, Canada should do a better job of really promoting bilingualism and imposing higher standards on English-first students to learn French.

A pointless waste of time. Why force kids in BC and NF to learn French all through school, when 99% of them will lose it completely within a few years of graduation? If you don't have need of a language, you lose it. Simple as that. Francophones learn and keep English because of constant exposure to English (read American) media and the larger English culture around them. Anglos outside Quebec and Ottawa simply have little or no contact or exposure to French.

[Bob]

A pointless waste of time. Why force kids in BC and NF to learn French all through school, when 99% of them will lose it completely within a few years of graduation? If you don't have need of a language, you lose it. Simple as that. Francophones learn and keep English because of constant exposure to English (read American) media and the larger English culture around them. Anglos outside Quebec and Ottawa simply have little or no contact or exposure to French.

Maybe you're right about a language being lost with disuse. I know that languages that aren't used become rusty, but I don't think that the students would lose French completely if they receive good instruction throughout their education. I also think that if the number of high school graduates in Canada who learn to speak French is significantly increased (a tough thing to do, indeed), I think they will find avenues through which they can use their French skills. Still, many other countries do MUCH better than we so with respect to teaching two languages to most their students. There just isn't a political will to increase emphasis on French education across Canada. On a personal note, I don't think any person who receives a strong education in a second language would ever regret the time investment and label it a "waste of time" if they were able to develop strong language skills in the secondary language.

Or, we can go the easy and more practical route - and remove French's official language status in Canada, which is politically unlikely. Looks like the status quo will continue where Francophones enjoy overrepresentation in our government - which is part of the reason our country seems to eternally tilt to the left (as leftist politics tend to support those who exploit the "French nation" concept for political ends).

Edited April 18, 2011 by Bob

[capricorn]

No one can deny the impact of the social media on this election, as pointed out in the following.

In the Twitterverse and blogosphere, issues can appear and disappear at lightspeed and one social media analyst suggests this has changed the whole pace of the campaign for the May 2 election.

"This election is being called by many the social media election," says Mark Blevis. "Some people have called it the Twitter election. I really think that this is the velocity election.

Elections used to unfold with the stately, deliberate pace of a baseball game, he said. Not this one.

"This one really seems like a hockey game," he said. "There's so much going on and so much activity."

The "rise up" event is given special mention.

In another social media moment, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff became the butt of humour over his "rise up" moment. His effort to galvanize his audience has ended up on YouTube. One version intercuts Ignatieff with American presidential hopeful Howard Dean ranting about change. Another version jumps between Ignatieff and John Belushi rallying his Animal House frat brothers.

Blevis said it would probably be better for the Liberals if the incident dies away.

"What I found most surprising about the video is that when he started doing the rise up thing it took forever for people in the room — who are apparently his supporters — to actually stand up.

"It could have been a powerful moment, but it died horribly."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5hk5uNVtqkVWii1oTtcCkwvqyJwNQ?docId=6594542

The discussion between Ignatieff and his handlers about whether to ditch or keep the "rise up" revue must be quite animated.

[CANADIEN]

From the perspective of official bilingualism in this country, you're right. But at the end of the day, about 80% of Canadians have stronger English than they do French. So although both languages are equal on paper, they're not equal in terms of their usage or importance to Canada at the broadest level. You need to concede that.

I am well aware of the fact that there are more people speaking English than French in Canada. But that's mathematics. what this is about is the right of Canadians to choose the Canadian language,English or French, that they use when communicating with the Government of this country; and whether or not French-speakings Canadians are fully Canadians, or not. Period. And if the kind of conceding you expect from me is to accept anything less than my full rights as a Canadian, find yourself a good couch and a pillow, because you gonna wait, and wait, and wait.

We're getting into the complicated subject of national identity as it is defined in Canada, and it's not something I really want to get into at the moment. Anyways, I completely understand your sentiment towards those that oppose your self-identification as a) French-Canadian. Still, who exactly is it that is opposed to your rights (do you mean national rights?)?

It is those who oppose my linguistic rights. BTW, when I identify myself as a French-Canadians (or, to be more accurate a French-speaking Canadian), I identify myself as a CANADIAN.

All the opposition I'm familiar with is the rejection of a divided sense of national identity in Canada, with the French-Canadian nation on one side, and the rest of Canada on the other.

Feel free anytime to pay a vist to postings by another poster by the name of Leafless, or to search for information about groups like the "Alliance for the Preservqation of English in Canada" and the "Confederation of Regions Party". You will find quickly that some of the people who say there should be one Canadian identity mean that the identity in question should be English-speaking, and that those whose first language is French need to assimilate in order to be fully Canadian.

As for the idea of a distinct french-Canadian (or Quebecois) nationhood or distinct identity, I consider its existence or non-existence to be a secondary issue when it comes to the rights of Canadians (although the fact there are differences between Quebec and the rest of the country is self-evident). That being said, if there is one identity in this country, then it involves me, my Canadian language, and my Canadian culture. Anybody who states otherwise is in fact stating that I am not a Canadian, and that my identity is separate from the Canadian identity.

Edited April 18, 2011 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

A pointless waste of time.

Then don't learn it. Just don't come whining if me and other French-speaking CANADIANS being recognized as such (official binlingualism) means that a few public service jobs are less accessible to you.

[CANADIEN]

Or, we can go the easy and more practical route - and remove French's official language status in Canada, which is politically unlikely.

Even simplier yet. Just tell me to my face I am not Canadian.

[Bob]

Hang on a second, why should French be a protected language in Canada above other languages? There are Canadians who don't speak English or French, should the government of Canada guarantee them services in their language(s)? As far as pragmatics go, there's a strong argument to be made that only English should be an official language in this country, given that it is the language of choice for 80% of Canadians in this country (at least when made to choose between English or French).

You are stating, quite clearly, that Canadians who are French-first should have rights to get services from their government in French, without guaranteeing that right to Canadians who don't speak French or English. The argument for having English as an official language, on the other hand, has strong practical support given the huge volume of English-speakers in this country.

Do you not see where I'm coming from? The only arguments I see in defense of French's status as an official language in Canada is historical and political. It's a large minority group, it was hear in the foundational era of Canada, and has done a great job politically organizing itself for special recognition. Is in the best interests of all of Canada? I don't think so. Mind you, not being in the interests of the greater good isn't necessarily an argument against French's status as an official language....

At the end of the day, it seems quite likely that the status quo will remain, and we will continue to see overrepresentation of Francophones in our government (which is bad for Canada given the tendency of Francophones to be leftists), and government-affiliates. It's too bad, but I think this is an intractable problem in Canada unless we really focusing on teaching high-level French to all Canadians - which I think is entirely doable, albeit unlikely.

Edited April 18, 2011 by Bob

[CANADIEN]

hmygod! I'm clueless? You're so clever! What an imaginative insult! And this isn't even your first language!

If you don't have the capacity to understand the fact that having French,, or English, or any other language for that matter is something different than speaking two or more language, yes indeed you are clueless.

As for this being an insult. Feel free to think of it as such. The same way I feel your drivel to be an insult to me, my rights and identity as a Canadian, and my country.

[CANADIEN]

Hang on a second, why should French be a protected language in Canada above other languages?

Hang on a second indeed. While I admire the hyppocrisy of the /no to French, so let's say why not yes to all other languages" stance.

Like it or not, French IS a Canadian language, and French-speaking Canadien cultures are Canadian. Feel free to demonstate that the same claim can be made of languages other than English, Innuktul or First Nation languages... that is if the "why not other languages" line to be taken at face value...

The issue is very simple... either I fully Canadian, with my canadian languages and my linguistic rights, or I am not. That I know I am fully Canadian is well known (so don't serve me the "but Quebecers are separatists" line, since am I am an Ontarian anyway).

Am I a Canadian, yes or no?

Edited April 18, 2011 by CANADIEN

[Handsome Rob]

No one can deny the impact of the social media on this election, as pointed out in the following.

The "rise up" event is given special mention.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5hk5uNVtqkVWii1oTtcCkwvqyJwNQ?docId=6594542

The discussion between Ignatieff and his handlers about whether to ditch or keep the "rise up" revue must be quite animated.

Surely they must realise how ridiculous he sounds "Rising up" against a government he supported on how many occasions? Or are they gambling that the average Canadian has no clue?

[ToadBrother]

Keep digging that hypocritical hole. Seems like all you've got is strawman attacks. You fit right in with the Liberals on that front.

I don't think you know what "strawman attack" means. I used to think you were a bit over the top, but reasonably intelligent, now I can only conclude you're a historically illiterate demagogue. I fail to see how anyone can feel it rational to attack a system they know so little about.

[capricorn]

Surely they must realise how ridiculous he sounds "Rising up" against a government he supported on how many occasions?

I doubt it. Otherwise, they would have put a stop to it after Sudbury. His handles must think Ignatieff "unplugged" will get the job done. Remember the advice some journalist's were offering a while back? "Let Iggy be Iggy".

Or are they gambling that the average Canadian has no clue?

Ignatieff all but accused Canadians of turning a blind eye to his warnings of the death of democracy and freedom as we know it. He summarized the attitude of Canadians to two words: "So what?". He then urged them to rise up. The message is off.

[punked]

He needs to tell his alternative. Speeches like the rise up ones, and I mean actually good speeches like this one not the one Iggy is giving, only speak to your base at the best of times. He needs to grow his base unless he thinks his base is the Anti-Harper vote what no one told when he was out of the country is a lot of the NDP votes come from the Anti-Liberal section of the public.

[Bonam]

Maybe you're right about a language being lost with disuse. I know that languages that aren't used become rusty, but I don't think that the students would lose French completely if they receive good instruction throughout their education.

It depends on the extent of disuse. I have myself for a perfect example: I used to be completely fluent in Hebrew. Today, I can literally count on one hand the number of Hebrew words I remember. A language not used will completely disappear, without a trace. I didn't want the same thing to happen to my French and so I actively make sure to read some French articles or watch some French TV every now and then to keep it from totally disappearing, but even so, I find myself hard pressed to keep up a French conversation at a natural pace despite being able to do so just a few years ago when I lived in Montreal. On the other hand, my Russian remains fluent because I use it to communicate with my parents and grandparents as well as occasional coworkers on a regular basis.

Point is, teaching kids French in school, even if it was taught very well, really would still be a waste of time, unless you also implemented some kind of mandatory lifelong French maintenance/development education programs, which would be huge time sinks for adults to be forced to go to and probably a violation of some kind of rights. The reality is that unless a language is in widespread use in the environment that one is immersed in, it will decay and deteriorate to nothing or almost nothing over time, unless one puts forth very determined efforts to maintain it.

Oh and just to comment on the topic of the thread: the revolution rhetoric coming from Ignatieff is pretty hilarious. That being said, I'd be careful about listening to Russian revolutionaries. We've seen how that's turned out in the past

Edited April 18, 2011 by Bonam

[Bob]

Hang on a second indeed. While I admire the hyppocrisy of the /no to French, so let's say why not yes to all other languages" stance.

Like it or not, French IS a Canadian language, and French-speaking Canadien cultures are Canadian. Feel free to demonstate that the same claim can be made of languages other than English, Innuktul or First Nation languages... that is if the "why not other languages" line to be taken at face value...

The issue is very simple... either I fully Canadian, with my canadian languages and my linguistic rights, or I am not. That I know I am fully Canadian is well known (so don't serve me the "but Quebecers are separatists" line, since am I am an Ontarian anyway).

Am I a Canadian, yes or no?

Yes, you are a Canadian. What kind of question is that?

You're not making any sense. I asked a simple question - why is French given official language status? English's status as an official language is understandable given its prevalence. The same cannot be said for French, however, unless it's an argument based on "we were here first", or something of that nature. Certainly French is a prominent language in Canada, with more speakers in Canada than any other language (aside from English, of course). Imagine one of the Chinese languages matches up with the prevalence of French... would we then grant official language status to Mandarin or Cantonese? I'm just trying to understand why you think French deserves the special recognition is has in Canada. I also have a lot of sympathy towards preservation of French being a worthy goal against social/economic forces, but there is a legitimate argument to be had regarding the best way to achieve these ends - with or without government involvement, or, to what degree government should be involved in these measures (i.e. bill 101?).

I have no idea what rights you seem to think I'm attacking. What are "linguistic rights"? I'm simply talking about the justification for holding French as an an official second language in this country, as well as the advantage is clearly gives towards Francophones with respect to government-related jobs - as well as how this damages Canada (in my humble opinion) through overepresentation of Francophones in positions of power, given the tendency of Francophones to be leftists.

Edited April 18, 2011 by Bob

[Bob]

double post.

Edited April 18, 2011 by Bob

[Bob]

It depends on the extent of disuse. I have myself for a perfect example: I used to be completely fluent in Hebrew. Today, I can literally count on one hand the number of Hebrew words I remember. A language not used will completely disappear, without a trace. I didn't want the same thing to happen to my French and so I actively make sure to read some French articles or watch some French TV every now and then to keep it from totally disappearing, but even so, I find myself hard pressed to keep up a French conversation at a natural pace despite being able to do so just a few years ago when I lived in Montreal. On the other hand, my Russian remains fluent because I use it to communicate with my parents and grandparents as well as occasional coworkers on a regular basis.

Point is, teaching kids French in school, even if it was taught very well, really would still be a waste of time, unless you also implemented some kind of mandatory lifelong French maintenance/development education programs, which would be huge time sinks for adults to be forced to go to and probably a violation of some kind of rights. The reality is that unless a language is in widespread use in the environment that one is immersed in, it will decay and deteriorate to nothing or almost nothing over time, unless one puts forth very determined efforts to maintain it.

Are you sure you're not using the term "completely fluent" a bit loosely in reference to your skills? I cannot see how someone who is completely fluent in any language can lose it from disuse. I do know that language skills do deteriorate from disuse. I would assume that the degree to which someone's language skills deteriorate are based on several factors - the level of language at the initiation of the degradation of the language skills, just how severe the disuse is, and perhaps some other element of innate abilities.

Consider your English fluency. If you never used English for the next five years, do you really think you'd get to the point where the number of English words you remembers could be counted on one hand? I would assume that if your Hebrew has degenerated to that point, that you weren't completely fluent to begin with.

Anyways, assuming an increased focus on French education in Canada IS a waste of time, and assuming that French cannot or should not be removed as an official language in this country, then the status quo will continue with overall advantages being afforded to Francophones in many spheres of work. This advantage, whether or not Canadians realize it, is certainly one of the primary motivations for Francophones to aggressively maintain French as an official language and aggressively pursue bilingualism wherever they can. It's too bad, I think.

[Bonam]

Are you sure you're not using the term "completely fluent" a bit loosely in reference to your skills? I cannot see how someone who is completely fluent in any language can lose it from disuse.

I dunno, I was the top of my class in Hebrew. I still have stacks of things I wrote in Hebrew which today I can't read a single word of (I only even recognize one character of the alphabet). I'm hardly the only one. A lot of people I know have completely forgotten languages they were good at. Now, I am referring to languages that people learn and are fluent at as children. Perhaps becoming fluent in a language as an adult, it would be harder to completely forget, then again, it's also harder to learn a language to fluency while an adult.

I do know that language skills do deteriorate from disuse. I would assume that the degree to which someone's language skills deteriorate are based on several factors - the level of language at the initiation of the degradation of the language skills, just how severe the disuse is, and perhaps some other element of innate abilities.

Definitely, the severity of disuse is a factor. I am talking about complete disuse. The kind of disuse one might expect a resident of BC to have with regards to French without taking specific action to maintain his/her French.

I'm not sure how much the initial fluency is a factor. I'd guess that forgetting a specialized skillset when it is no longer in use probably follows a decaying exponential curve. Wherever you start, it has the same shape and asymptotes to zero over time, and starting at a higher initial value buys you very little extra time since the most rapid decay is when there is more of something left to decay.

You are however right that innate abilities will play a big factor. Different people have better or worse memories. Some people may remember a specialized skillset such as a language far longer and better than others.

[CANADIEN]

dup

Edited April 18, 2011 by CANADIEN

[Bonam]

Consider your English fluency. If you never used English for the next five years, do you really think you'd get to the point where the number of English words you remembers could be counted on one hand? I would assume that if your Hebrew has degenerated to that point, that you weren't completely fluent to begin with.

There's probably a difference there, I think in English now. When you think in a language, you constantly use it, even if you do not use it externally. My Russian is as fluent as my English, but I don't think in it anymore. If I didn't use it at all for 5 years, I think it would definitely decay severely. Probably not to the point of 5 words, but certainly to the point where I could no longer maintain a natural conversation. Heck, just after 1 year in Montreal, where I used Russian much much less, I was noticeably rusty when I got back home. In the case of Hebrew, I haven't used it at all for about 15 years.

Edited April 18, 2011 by Bonam

[Bob]

I dunno, I was the top of my class in Hebrew. I still have stacks of things I wrote in Hebrew which today I can't read a single word of (I only even recognize one character of the alphabet). I'm hardly the only one. A lot of people I know have completely forgotten languages they were good at. Now, I am referring to languages that people learn and are fluent at as children. Perhaps becoming fluent in a language as an adult, it would be harder to completely forget, then again, it's also harder to learn a language to fluency while an adult.

Definitely, the severity of disuse is a factor. I am talking about complete disuse. The kind of disuse one might expect a resident of BC to have with regards to French without taking specific action to maintain his/her French.

I'm not sure how much the initial fluency is a factor. I'd guess that forgetting a specialized skillset when it is no longer in use probably follows a decaying exponential curve. Wherever you start, it has the same shape and asymptotes to zero over time, and starting at a higher initial value buys you very little extra time since the most rapid decay is when there is more of something left to decay.

You are however right that innate abilities will play a big factor. Different people have better or worse memories. Some people may remember a specialized skillset such as a language far longer and better than others.

My parents are also Russian immigrants, by the way. My father was 37 and my mother was 29 when they arrived in Canada. Obviously, their Russian has persevered. They also use it every day with each other, and virtually all of their friends are Russian. Many business colleagues, as well. Still, my parents have told me that their Russian is certainly not what it used to be, which is completely understandable because they never write/type in Russian, anymore. They also read very little Russian.

Still, it seems to me that there is a big disconnect between our official policies in Canada and reality. Practically, there isn't enough French in this country to justify its status as an official language. We spend a lot of energy and resources ensuring that bilingualism permeates all facets of our government, to benefit a minority of Canadians with a sense of entitlement. It seems to me that a realistic way to address this problem would be to put more emphasis on French education in primary and secondary schooling. If it's a waste of time, however, I'd like to see some courageous leadership take on the French nationalist establishment and begin to strip away their special status and privileges - starting with French being an official language. I guess politically, it's simply too hot of a potato and just not that pressing of an issue. I guess we'll indefinitely see one out of every second government employee with a last name like LaFrancois.