Up the Revolution!

[Bob]

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.

Maybe I'm naive to think that no matter what, I would never lose my English skills. Decay, of course... but loss of practical fluency? Never.

[Bonam]

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.

Yeah the Russian-Jewish immigrant to Canada/America is a very common story.

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.

Well, personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with Canada maintaining its tradition of bilingualism. However, I also don't think so many jobs should be restricted to bilingual French and English speakers. There only need to be enough French speakers filling these jobs to reasonably serve the amount of people likely to want to use French.

Maybe I'm naive to think that no matter what, I would never lose my English skills. Decay, of course... but loss of practical fluency? Never.

As long as its the language you think in, it's probably not going anywhere. Anyway, English is kind of an interesting case, because if you know it, it's almost impossible not to use it. After all, an overwhelming preponderance of the world's useful modern information is available exclusively, primarily, or at least most accessibly in English. If you become as fluent in Hebrew as you are in English (since you live in Israel now), you'll probably still Google things in English, and read the results in English.

Edited April 18, 2011 by Bonam

[CANADIEN]

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

I am Canadian, but my Canadian language is not Canadian enough. what kind of an answer is that?

You're not making any sense. I asked a simple question

This coming form someone who use the non-sensical "I do not think any language other than English should be recognized as official, but I'll ask why not other language anyway".

Official status for French is based on a simple fact. French is a Canadian language. Meaning that cultures unique to Canada have developed in this country using the French language. also, since even before Confederation, French has had an official status. The English and French languages are part of our national fabric, in a way Mandarin (to use your example) is not and has never been.

I have no idea what rights you seem to think I'm attacking. What are "linguistic rights"?

As I said before - primarily, the right of each and every Canadian to use either English or French when communicating with the Government of their country.

I'm simply talking about the justification for holding French as an an official second language in this country (...)

Official status goes hand in had with the rights I just mentioned.

as well as the advantage is clearly gives towards Francophones with respect to government-related jobs -

Oh well, official bilingualism is bad because, as a result of more Francophones being bilingual, there will be more Francophines in the ppublic service, so better have one official language and in essence force all Francophones to become bilingual - do I get it right?

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.

I never thought there would come a day when I say something like this, but even the most bigoted Francophobic poaters had something more relevant to offer against official bilingualism than "it's bad because most Francophones tend to be leftists". Frankly...

[Bob]

Well, personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with Canada maintaining its tradition of bilingualism. However, I also don't think so many jobs should be restricted to bilingual French and English speakers. There only need to be enough French speakers filling these jobs to reasonably serve the amount of people likely to want to use French.

That's a good compromise. Unfortunately, aggressive French legal activism has done a lot of damage in this respect. All sort of positions at all sorts of levels in the government are unjustifiably requiring bilingualism. Beyond that, many companies that do business with the various governments also have bilingual requirements as a function of this phenomenon. Even worse, I'm sure we've all heard the stories of unequal requirements for English and French - basically, lots of forgiveness for bad English, not so much the other way around. This is the result of aggressive French activism. I'm sure most of us are familiar with these problems.... and remember, this brings lots of French folks into the government system, which contributes to leftism.

As long as its the language you think in, it's probably not going anywhere. Anyway, English is kind of an interesting case, because if you know it, it's almost impossible not to use it. After all, an overwhelming preponderance of the world's useful modern information is available exclusively, primarily, or at least most accessibly in English. If you become as fluent in Hebrew as you are in English (since you live in Israel now), you'll probably still Google things in English, and read the results in English.

Definitely.

[CANADIEN]

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.

More than one Canadian in 5. And you are the one talking about reality.

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.

Equal rights for all Canadians benefit all Canadians. As for me knowing that I should be treated as the Canadian I am, including the right to use my Canadian language... yep, I am entitled to that.

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.

What makes me a Canadian is a special status? Communicating with my government in my Canadian language is a priviledge? You say I am a Canadian, but I should not be treated as one...

Fortunately for Canada, and unfortunately for you, the linguistic rights of Canadians are not fading away.

[Bob]

I am Canadian, but my Canadian language is not Canadian enough. what kind of an answer is that?

What? I have no idea what you're talking about. Only in this post did you begin to define what you meant by a language being "Canadian". Which leads us into the next part of your post...

This coming form someone who use the non-sensical "I do not think any language other than English should be recognized as official, but I'll ask why not other language anyway".

I am saying that based on practical need. English is overwhelmingly the predominant language in Canada. Would you still support French maintaining its official language status in the event of its diminishment in Canada? What if in the future French is only the first language of 10% of Canadians? What about 5%? Is French's official status eternal?

Official status for French is based on a simple fact. French is a Canadian language. Meaning that cultures unique to Canada have developed in this country using the French language. also, since even before Confederation, French has had an official status. The English and French languages are part of our national fabric, in a way Mandarin (to use your example) is not and has never been.

Alright fine, I completely understand. But are we to keep the social fabric static and not fluid? There are large Chinese-Canadian communities along the West Coast, can we not define them as cultures that have developed in Canada? Don't you think Chinese communities in Canada differ, at least somewhat, from the communities they come from? Can Mandarin or Cantonese ever become part of the Canadian national fabric?

As I said before - primarily, the right of each and every Canadian to use either English or French when communicating with the Government of their country.

Official status goes hand in had with the rights I just mentioned.

So you believe that French-speaking Canadians should have special "linguistic rights" afforded to them because of their first language. That's fine. The law obviously endorses your position and grants French-speakers those protections. Clearly, I'm uncertain how I feel about that. Intuitively, I am not sure it's a worthwhile endeavour. At the very least, we've been too aggressive in our moves to provide French services throughout all levels of government.

Oh well, official bilingualism is bad because, as a result of more Francophones being bilingual, there will be more Francophines in the ppublic service, so better have one official language and in essence force all Francophones to become bilingual - do I get it right?

I never thought there would come a day when I say something like this, but even the most bigoted Francophobic poaters had something more relevant to offer against official bilingualism than "it's bad because most Francophones tend to be leftists". Frankly...

I stand by that statement. One of the unintended consequences of bilingualism policy in Canada has been the installation of a largely leftist demographic into our government. More generally, though, Francophones are overrepresented in our government, at the expense of everyone else. At least we can agree that that is unfair. A leftist like you should at least concede that.

Remember also, that all people who live in this country whose first language isn't French or English are compelled to learn one of our official languages. In the hypothetical future scenario where French's status as an official language is removed, French folks will join the rest of the Canadians who had to learn English. Let's not pretend that most Francophones don't speak English, anyways. It's not like removing French's status as an official language would really place great hardship on the French community in Canada.

[CANADIEN]

What? I have no idea what you're talking about.

Don't worry, I figured that out right from your first posting on the subject.

Only in this post did you begin to define what you meant by a language being "Canadian".

Actually, there is nothing in there I haven't said for the past three years on this site.

I am saying that based on practical need. English is overwhelmingly the predominant language in Canada.

And nobody is saying otherwise. As far as individual rights are concerned though, it is irrelevant.

Would you still support French maintaining its official language status in the event of its diminishment in Canada? What if in the future French is only the first language of 10% of Canadians? What about 5%? Is French's official status eternal?

When that happens, come and get me out of the grave, will you?

Alright fine, I completely understand. But are we to keep the social fabric static and not fluid? There are large Chinese-Canadian communities along the West Coast, can we not define them as cultures that have developed in Canada? Don't you think Chinese communities in Canada differ, at least somewhat, from the communities they come from? Can Mandarin or Cantonese ever become part of the Canadian national fabric?

The fabric of a country is never static. as for whether or not Mandarin or Cantonese can be considered Canadian languages, I'll dsicuss that with someone who actaully believes that's the case, not someone who uses the argument even though he does not believe in it.

So you believe that French-speaking Canadians should have special "linguistic rights" afforded to them because of their first language.

TWhat special rights? The right to use my Canadian language? There is nothing special about that. As you admitted yourself,you have no idea what I am talking about. That's fine.

Clearly, I'm uncertain how I feel about that.

Your opposition too it looks pretty clear to me.

I stand by that statement. One of the unintended consequences of bilingualism policy in Canada has been the installation of a largely leftist demographic into our government. More generally, though, Francophones are overrepresented in our government, at the expense of everyone else. At least we can agree that that is unfair. A leftist like you should at least concede that.

Me, a leftist? Considering the the number of areas where I hold views that we be considered to the right... As for the issue of the composition of the federal civil service... I for one do not care what is the first language of our federal civil servants, or where they were born, or their skin colour, or their religion, sexual orientation or political leanings. They're Canadians and they do their job? That's all that counts to me.

Remember also, that all people who live in this country whose first language isn't French or English are compelled to learn one of our official languages. [/Quote]As it should be.

In the hypothetical future scenario where French's status as an official language is removed

you mean in your dreams

(...) French folks

and what do people from France have to do with this, pray tell? Iam a French-speaking CANADIAN, thank you very much

(...)will join the rest of the Canadians who had to learn English.

English is already taught in all French-language schools in Canada, so let's not pretent it's about French-speaking Canadians learning English. It's about French-speaking Canadians not being allowed to use French to communicate with the Government of their country.

Let's not pretend that most Francophones don't speak English, anyways.

Oh realy? According to the 2006 census, there were more people in Quebec (to name one province) who understood French only than people who understood French and English.

It's not like removing French's status as an official language would really place great hardship on the French community in Canada.

Except the hardship of knowing that their language, their culture, who they are is no longer Canadian enough.

Edited April 18, 2011 by CANADIEN

[Scotty]

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.

Since I'm paying quite a bit of taxes I want my public servants to be selected on the basis of competence, not linguistic ability, unless it can be demonstrated that the linguistic ability is actually necessary to the duties they are to perform.

That, of course, is not how it's done now. Now they're selected primarily for linguistic ability, regardless of knowledge, education or competence, which is one of the reasons there is so much inefficiency and stupidity in the public service.

[Scotty]

I am Canadian, but my Canadian language is not Canadian enough. what kind of an answer is that?

The language duality thing made a kind of sense when there was only two real languages. Now that so many millions speak other languages it makes less sense each year.

Official status for French is based on a simple fact. French is a Canadian language. Meaning that cultures unique to Canada have developed in this country using the French language.

There is nothing particularly unique about Quebec's culture, unless you want to suggest Newfoundland's culture is also unique, as is PEIs, as is Alberta's as is BC's.... One could argue more logically about unique native languages and cultures.

I never thought there would come a day when I say something like this, but even the most bigoted Francophobic poaters had something more relevant to offer against official bilingualism than "it's bad because most Francophones tend to be leftists". Frankly...

Like there isn't an underlying layer of bigotry present any time Francophones talk about Anglophones, a sense of smug superiority that Anglos lack the cultural sophistication of Francophones and waste time in silly pursuit of wealth rather than the more noble pursuit of leisure common to the French.

[Smallc]

There is nothing particularly unique about Quebec's culture,

He didn't say anything about Quebec culture, he was talking about French Canadian culture. The reality is that Canada is just a much a French nation as it is an English one. Now, along the way, our culture had adapted and changed and brought in other components (that is the real essence of Canadian culture), but at it's core, this country is one that was shaped by a history that is very much based on the English and French experience. Official bilingualism is a reflection of that, and the reality that nearly 1/4 of this country still has French as a mother language.

[CANADIEN]

Since I'm paying quite a bit of taxes I want my public servants to be selected on the basis of competence, not linguistic ability, unless it can be demonstrated that the linguistic ability is actually necessary to the duties they are to perform.

That, of course, is not how it's done now. Now they're selected primarily for linguistic ability, regardless of knowledge, education or competence, which is one of the reasons there is so much inefficiency and stupidity in the public service.

Nice try. The capacity to be able to serve the public in a way compatible with to the citizens' rights, including its lingusitic rights, are part of the skills needed in our civil service.

[Battletoads]

He didn't say anything about Quebec culture, he was talking about French Canadian culture. The reality is that Canada is just a much a French nation as it is an English one.

How so? Any claim that Canada is a french nation disappeared around the time that the Battle of the Plains of Abraham took place. Canada is an English Country with a small minority of people who speak french. (Outside of Quebec I don't know if you can even call the French a 'small minority')

[Scotty]

Nice try. The capacity to be able to serve the public in a way compatible with to the citizens' rights, including its lingusitic rights, are part of the skills needed in our civil service.

Really? When was the last time you spoke to a manager in the public service in Ottawa? Or an executive? Or a deputy minister? I won't argue that those who call in or go to a government office which serves the public should be able to obtain service in either official language where numbers warrant. But I see no reason why the entire central management structure must be fluently bilingual when 99% of their work is internal. Whatever minute use their French would be in terms of the occasional public communication is outweighed by the massive inefficiency of selecting the entire management cadre from the 2% or so of the population which is fluently bilingual. Doing that means hiring and promoting too many second raters - and third raters for that matter.

Edited April 19, 2011 by Scotty

[CANADIEN]

The language duality thing made a kind of sense when there was only two real languages. Now that so many millions speak other languages it makes less sense each year.

Except for the FACTS that new Canadians need to learn either English or French to integrate in our society.

There is nothing particularly unique about Quebec's culture

On contrary. as your next paragraph examplifies. I am sure that English-speaking Canadians do not meet with the same level of prejudicide and ingorance coming from you. Except immigrants, of course.

Like there isn't an underlying layer of bigotry present any time Francophones talk about Anglophones, a sense of smug superiority that Anglos lack the cultural sophistication of Francophones and waste time in silly pursuit of wealth rather than the more noble pursuit of leisure common to the French.

The bigotry is eveidently yours. Not English-speaking Canadians, yours. I for one have better things to do than to consider myself better, or worse, than other people on account of their language.

[CANADIEN]

How so? Any claim that Canada is a french nation disappeared around the time that the Battle of the Plains of Abraham took place. Canada is an English Country with a small minority of people who speak french. (Outside of Quebec I don't know if you can even call the French a 'small minority')

Canada is a Canadian country. And any claim of yours that it is english-speaking only is disproven day in and day out. This is 2011. Time to join the 21st century.

[Smallc]

How so? Any claim that Canada is a french nation disappeared around the time that the Battle of the Plains of Abraham took place.

No it didn't. To say so shows a massive ignorance of Canadian History.

[CANADIEN]

Really? When was the last time you spoke to a manager in the public service in Ottawa? Or an executive? Or a deputy minister?

And when was the last time you did? Nice to see by the way, that what languages civil service managers can speak is not relevant to you. Me, well... I don't see any reason why you would have to deal with unilingual French-speaking civil servants.

[CANADIEN]

No it didn't. To say so shows a massive ignorance of Canadian History.

Canada is not a French country. Nor an English country. It is Canadian.

[punked]

The Liberals are buying a half and hour on TV to show Iggy's rise up speech this weekend. In other news I wont be watching that snooze fest. Seems like a waste of money to me, TV isn't the medium people watch anymore and those who do will tune out.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/liberals-to-air-half-hour-tv-special-with-michael-ignatieff/article1993507/

Edited April 20, 2011 by punked

[capricorn]

The Liberals are buying a half and hour on TV to show Iggy's rise up speech this weekend.

Hmm. From talk show host, to professor, to politician, to vaudeville performer. Ignatieff is good at reinventing himself.

[Scotty]

And when was the last time you did? Nice to see by the way, that what languages civil service managers can speak is not relevant to you. Me, well... I don't see any reason why you would have to deal with unilingual French-speaking civil servants.

But I don't deal with them, any more than you do, so I'd prefer they be hired and promoted due to competence, not their fluency in a language they don't need to communicate with a public they don't ever see.

[CANADIEN]

But I don't deal with them, any more than you do, so I'd prefer they be hired and promoted due to competence, not their fluency in a language they don't need to communicate with a public they don't ever see.

Who gave you the impression that I don't communicate with civil servants outside of the front line people. I have had the opportunity over the years to deal with civl servants who are not front line, not that many though above the lower management level, and only one ADM (well, he was my boss before joining the public service ). I have rarely had reason to consider those people to dealt with to be not sufficiently competant, knowledgeable and professional for the task at hand. And more so that quite a few people in similar positions in the private sector.

And if you don't deal with them, how do you know how competent they are or are not?

Edited April 21, 2011 by CANADIEN

[Scotty]

Who gave you the impression that I don't communicate with civil servants outside of the front line people. I have had the opportunity over the years to deal with civl servants who are not front line, not that many though above the lower management level, and only one ADM (well, he was my boss before joining the public service ). I have rarely had reason to consider those people to dealt with to be not sufficiently competant, knowledgeable and professional for the task at hand. And more so that quite a few people in similar positions in the private sector.

And if you don't deal with them, how do you know how competent they are or are not?

Take two recruiters looking for top legal knowledge for their companies. One gets to recruit from among 1,000 lawyers in the province. The other has to recruit from only those lawyers who are fluently bilingual, or about 2%. That's 20 lawyers available to him to select from.

Which recruiter is likely to get the top legal brains?

[CANADIEN]

Take two recruiters looking for top legal knowledge for their companies. One gets to recruit from among 1,000 lawyers in the province. The other has to recruit from only those lawyers who are fluently bilingual, or about 2%. That's 20 lawyers available to him to select from.

Which recruiter is likely to get the top legal brains?

The premise is obvious - that bilingual candidates are likely to be of lesser quality.

Which, of course, is absolute non-sense.

A bilingual lawyer is likely to have a better understanding of how Quebec civil law works, for example. And quite frankly, someone who can manage to be good enough of a lasyer to be considered for a senior position AND be able to function in a second language is likely to be amongst the top in his/her position. Not because he/she can speak a second language per se, but because they combine that knind f knwledge with a very analytical mind, which is what is needed to be a legal expert.

Besides, a recruiter hiring for top positions is unlikely to think there are hundreds of possible candidates, or want to look over dozens, let alone hundreds of résumés. If anything, he"she will likely do head hunting, go to the potential candidates more than the other way around.

[TimG]

And quite frankly, someone who can manage to be good enough of a lasyer to be considered for a senior position AND be able to function in a second language is likely to be amongst the top in his/her position.

Actual no. Learning a second language that is only useful in the unlikely event of SCC appointment is a time consuming task. If the rule was instituted, it would likely only be met by second rate legal minds looking to make up for what they lack in other areas. The top minds would not waste their time on languages because they would already have more than enough opportunities to pursue that provide a greater ROI. Edited April 21, 2011 by TimG