Canadians needs a bilingual education

[seabee]

Let us assume that the cost of bilingualism in Canada is too high. Then let us abolish it. Use French only.

After all, the federal prime minister has, for the last 35 years, nearly always been a French-canadian. Many, if not most of the major departments have been headed by French-canadians. And, as everyone knows, it seems, the public service sector in Ottawa is manned by French-Canadians. And this would end the awful discrimination against unilingual francophones who cannot get a job in the federal public service.

Obviously, the cost of bilingualism is due to French-to-English translation, not the other way around.

Unless the Québec nationalists are right; everyone in Canada has to be bilingual, except for those who speak English...

[Stoker]

I wouldn't take too much notice of Reid, if I were you, or the others. They have axes to grind. I once knew a Concordia professor who did a more reasoned costing - I don't recall his figures.

Could it not cut both ways?

Let us assume that the cost of bilingualism in Canada is too high. Then let us abolish it. Use French only.

Do the majority of Canadians speak French? Is our largest trading partner French speaking?

I'm still waiting for a good reason as of why we need to be a forced bilingual nation..........

[maplesyrup]

That's a great idea, let's lose English as an official language.

French only from now on.

Ici aussi?

[maplesyrup]

What Canada needs:

More Al-Jazeera, less CNN.

More French, less English.

More Latin Americans, less Europeans.

More African music, less square dancing.

More environmentalists, less clear cutters.

More education, less TV.

More vacations, less work.

More cultural celebrations, less war memorials.

More respect for First Nations, less power for Whitey.

[Stoker]

And What maplesyrup needs is a scrip of Diazepam........

[maplesyrup]

Do the majority of Canadians speak French? Is our largest trading partner French speaking?

Did it ever occur to you that maybe the United States is privileged to trade with us?

Ah, no, that might be considered an original thought, probably not allowed in the business schools.

What is it with you guys that are so lacking in self-esteem you feel you always have to kiss American butt?

[Argus]

If the English majority had wanted to assimilate them, had thought it worth the effort involved, they would have done so. Just ask the Irish.

Quite correct. In fact, they would have deported or killed or starve to death, or die from exposure if they had wanted to. And, to a certain extent, they did want to, and it resulted in the death of several thousands of Acadians and Canadiens. It is a well known fact among Québécois; outside of their limited group, the English believe that "Might makes right".

Well, perhaps your "Quebecois" might have a look at the way the French government behaved during that particular point in history, the brutal invasion of and repression of other nations might make a good example. Examine their behaviour towards the Spanish and Portugese in particular and you'll find it even worse than what the Nazis did during Hitler's era.

As for the Acadians, most of Acadia was ceded to England in 1713 in the treaty of Utrecht - two years after a fairly notorious massacre of English troops by the Acadians and Indians. They refused to swear allegiance to the Crown. In 1749 the Acadians and Indians again joined together to murder a number of English settlers during another France-English war. After the French were defeated in 1755 the Acadians were again asked to swear allegiance to the crown. They again refused. They were ordered deported, and very rightly so. Had the shoe been on the other foot the French would have been merciless - as they demonstrated with occupied territories in Europe and elsewhere.

However, the French in Quebec did swear allegiance, and in return they were guaranteed the rights to their own schools and churches, operating in their own language and religion. If the English had not done that there would be precious few French speakers around today.

This has been an argument used by some in favor of Québec's independance. But it backfired. In fact, on the independance referenda, many people voted "no" not because of their love for federalism or English Canada, but because they feared for their life and that of their loved ones. 

Utter nonsense, utter crap. Those who voted against indpenendance had not the slightest fear of force being employed. Rather, they feared losing their jobs, feared the economy of an independant Quebec going into the toilet without the constant handouts from Ontario and Alberta.

[Argus]

But he does not want his kid, who at present speaks no French, to be dumped into an all French school.

My understanding was that at the root of the problem was that the child had previously had his schooling in a French immersion program outside Québec.

You are incorrect - again. It was the father who had schooling in a French immersion program. It seems that to the Quebec government that means he was educated in French, and so his children must go to French schools.

[Stoker]

Did it ever occur to you that maybe the United States is privileged to trade with us?

Ah, no, that might be considered an original thought, probably not allowed in the business schools.

What is it with you guys that are so lacking in self-esteem you feel you always have to kiss American butt?

Go look up realism maplesyrup.......

Canada

Exports - partners:

US 87.7%, Japan 2%, UK 1.1% (2002)

Imports - partners:

US 62.6%, China 4.6%, Japan 4.4% (2002)

United States

Exports - partners:

Canada 23.2%, Mexico 14.1%, Japan 7.4%, UK 4.8% (2002)

Imports - partners:

Canada 17.8%, Mexico 11.3%, China 11.1%, Japan 10.4%, Germany 5.3% (2002)

Who depends on the other more for both exports and imports?

It's not kissing ass, it more akin to not biting the hand that feeds you

[Argus]

I don't think being bilingual is a bad thing, and I've no real problem with my tax dollars going to langauge classes in schools, but why should we focus on French?

Or, for that matter, in Québec, why English?After all, this is the 21st century, instant communications around the globe, rapid transportation around the world. The growing market in America is no longer the U.S. of A., but the rest of America, from Mexico downwards, where Spanish is the language of the people, save for Brazil, which speaks Portuguese, another Latin language.

Gee, could it be because this "growing market" is tiny, because Latin America is impoverished? Could it be because Quebec is a small part of a much larger entity called Canada where everyone else speaks English? Could it be because the international language of business, science and trade is English?

[Argus]

Anglos are never going to understand that. I, for one, have no particular attachment to English. The possibility my descendants might one day be speaking another language does not keep me up at nights.

Argus, do you want to remain "Canadian" at least while you and your children are alive? That is, do you want to ensure that there is a place in the world called "Canada" with its own peculiar way of doing things?

Well, that is no different than wanting to preserve your language. Argus, it is easy to say with bravado that you don't care what happens to your descendants. But you cannot imagine that your great-grandchildren will have to struggle in life because they speak Mandarin with attrocious accents.

And why would they speak it with attrocious accents? Maybe they'd have very nice accents. Remember that my ancestors spoke gaelic. Now they speak very nice English and it doesn't seem to have harmed them any. Yes, the Irish and Scots have a somewhat different accent than the English, but so what? So do the Americans and Aussies.

Language is the ability to communicate. If I could wave a magic wand and make everyone in the world speak the same language - but it couldn't be English, I'd do so in an instant. It wouldn't at all bother me that we'd all be speaking German, or Dutch, or Swahili, or whatever. I would not weep for the loss of English. On the other hand, I think the French would get hysterical at the loss of French. I don't know why, but they're not very logical about it.

If the English majority had wanted to assimilate them, had thought it worth the effort involved, they would have done so. Just ask the Irish. But the French were given protected status, as was their language and religion and schools. If that hadn't been the case now there'd be as many French speakers here as there are Gailic speakers in Ireland.

What you have written is just dumb. You don't know Canada's history.

On the contrary, I know my history very well, and I know very well what harsh and repressive measures the English have taken in the past - as I said, you can examine Irish or Scottish history to see.

[Argus, I sense throughout your post a basic "anti-Quebec" sentiment.  I have always been astonished by English Canada.  While English-Canadians are quick to describe Americans for being loud-mouthed, ignorant people who seem to think they own the world, English-Canadians don't seem to understand that they behave the same way in Canada.

You are quite correct in that I am anti-Quebec. I have had a lifetime of endless whining, snivelling, bitching, and complaining from Quebec. They are like a relative you support but who, instead of showing the least gratitude, can do nothing but sneer and bitch and tell you how much better than you they are, and how grasping and greedy you are for not giving them more comforts, and how grateful you should be for their companionship.

I am sick of Quebec and I would be overjoyed should they finally, in a moment of reckless, stupid emotion, pick up and leave. And that is not due to my ignorance of them, but my familiarity.

[August1991]

However, the French in Quebec did swear allegiance, and in return they were guaranteed the rights to their own schools and churches, operating in their own language and religion. If the English had not done that there would be precious few French speakers around today.

All 60,000 swore allegiance? That is nonsense. The Quebec Act was written under very different circumstances than you imply.

In addition, your reading of Acadian history is selective and biased.

More pointedly, your repeated suggestion (in this post as elsewhere) that the French language survived in North America because of the kindness of the British is wrong. It survived because French-speakers had very large families.

Argus, it seems that you don't like French-speaking people, and Quebec in particular. Many people have such emotional biases. It's not a big deal.

But your opinions are not objective and your knowledge of history blinkered. That is unfortunate for someone with an apparently sharp mind.

Argus, can you say anything good about the French-speaking people in Canada?

[Argus]

I am of the opinion that if the school system and educators think the child will benefit in learning this one way, like it works now and has worked in the past and if they have had some track record for saying this then where is the sin

Uhm, the school system is operating under laws that were never designed with the well-being of the child in mind. Those laws are designed to preserver French, regardless of the well-being of individuals, especially Anglos. Because his father attended a French immersion program in another province the Quebec government considers that he was educated in French. By law, then, his child must be educated in French. Oddly, they do not consider French immersion to be a "french" education within Quebec, only outside it.

[August1991]

You are quite correct in that I am anti-Quebec. I have had a lifetime of endless whining, snivelling, bitching, and complaining from Quebec. They are like a relative you support but who, instead of showing the least gratitude, can do nothing but sneer and bitch and tell you how much better than you they are, and how grasping and greedy you are for not giving them more comforts, and how grateful you should be for their companionship.

I am sick of Quebec and I would be overjoyed should they finally, in a moment of reckless, stupid emotion, pick up and leave. And that is not due to my ignorance of them, but my familiarity.

You apparently answered my question. As I say, that is most unfortunate.

I have generally found in life that when someone makes broad generalizations about a group of people, it says more about the person than about the group.

[CANADIEN]

Stoker,

Keep using economic excuses to deny the right of each and every Canadian to choose to receive their education either in French and English as they choose. It won't change the fact that right should and do exist.

But now that I think about it, you may have a point about the alleged violation of rights that occures because French-language education is publicly funded. I will take myself as example.

I have been working for more than ten years in an English-speaking environment and (besides my typos), everyone I know or work with would readily certify that I have no problem using or unsterding English. Yet, I attended a French school, not an English one. Based on my personal experience, there is no doubt in my mind that my children, if I got any one day, would not need English school any more than I need.

Consequently, it is evident that I have no need for English schools. Isn't it therefore a violation of my right to be made to pay for it through taxes? When do I get my reimbursement, Stoker?

[CANADIEN]

Argus,

You may think that you are the master of the manor and we, Francos, are the lackeys. You may believe that we should be happy to get the scraps of the table (being authorized to use our language as long as it doesn't inconvenience you) while not being admitted to the banquet hall (in other words, staying away from the West, Westmount or Eaton's). Guess what, we are owners of the manor too Argus. If you don't like it, move, and bring your bigotry with you.

[Stoker]

Keep using economic excuses to deny the right of each and every Canadian to choose to receive their education either in French and English as they choose. It won't change the fact that right should and do exist.

Explain to me why it is and why it should be a right. The current language laws are a sham, nothing more then the carrot and the stick approach to appease Quebec. I no longer want to pay for the carrot. That money wasted on the carrot could have went to many other areas that demand a higher priority.

Consequently, it is evident that I have no need for English schools. Isn't it therefore a violation of my right to be made to pay for it through taxes? When do I get my reimbursement, Stoker?

You can get your reimbursement after we get the 60+ billion dollars back from French education programs.......

[CANADIEN]

Argus,

Should I be grateful to you for the survival of the French language in Canada? Sure, as long as you also accept my thanks for how French survived in provinces other than Quebec despite efforts to suppress it.

[Stoker]

Should I be grateful to you for the survival of the French language in Canada?

Not to us directly, I should think the British Crown and Parliment would be a choice.......but I guess you could make the argument that Quebec would look rather different if it was not for transfer payments from the ROC.....I guess you should be grateful to both.

Sure, as long as you also accept my thanks for how French survived in provinces other than Quebec despite efforts to suppress it

Who really tried to suppress your culture? Come on now.

Infact, we (as in the ROC) are suppressing our own needs for your culture.......give it a rest.

[CANADIEN]

Stoker,

Explanations are for those who have the capacity to understand them. So I will stick to an undeniable fact (even though we both know that you will try - in vain - to deny it). Both the French and English languages are part of the Canadian identity. No amount of economic excuses or pointing that the Queen is British will change that.

The lingustic rights of Canadians are the undisputable consequence of that undisputable fact. Nothing you have said, are saying or will say even amounts to a portion of a shred of evidence to the contrary.

[CANADIEN]

Stoker,

The first payment for the alleged 60 billion is the French schoold that were forcibly converted into English schools through most provinces at various times throughout our country's history. The second one is the amount paid by French-speaking Canadians in the past for government services they were not allowed to access in their own language. With interests, the cost of those denials of Canadians' rights and identity as Canadians should come to a nice little sum.

[CANADIEN]

Stoker,

Who tried to suppress the French language? Let's see...

At various times in the history of our country, the governments of New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta (and quoting those just from memory) adopted laws that prohibited French-language instruction in publicly funded schools, including those that had been built by local French-speaking communities and paid with their money. In one case, Manitoba, it went as far as violating for more than 90 years linguistic guarantees that had been spelled out in the terms of admission of the province.

And the intention was usually clear... to keep French limited to Quebec. Should make you proud, right?

So, until you get a better grasp of facts, why don't you give it a rest. Or better not, I still need a good laugh

[Stoker]

Explanations are for those who have the capacity to understand them. So I will stick to an undeniable fact (even though we both know that you will try - in vain - to deny it). Both the French and English languages are part of the Canadian identity. No amount of economic excuses or pointing that the Queen is British will change that.

Other then the insult, are you saying that you have no real reason why Western Canada should be bilingual?

I've another question, if it ever came to it, what would you choose?

1. My "idea", in that the provinces pay for their own bilingual programs.

-OR-

2. Western Seperation.

The lingustic rights of Canadians are the undisputable consequence of that undisputable fact. Nothing you have said, are saying or will say even amounts to a portion of a shred of evidence to the contrary.

I've never said that the under the current language laws, lingustic rights are not a right. My entire point has been whether the laws should be changed, thus no longer making lingustic rights a right to every Canadian.

The first payment for the alleged 60 billion is the French schoold that were forcibly converted into English schools through most provinces at various times throughout our country's history. The second one is the amount paid by French-speaking Canadians in the past for government services they were not allowed to access in their own language. With interests, the cost of those denials of Canadians' rights and identity as Canadians should come to a nice little sum.

If we want to get really picky, we should site down with a ledger and pen to figure out how much French Canadians owe Canadians of British heritage for allowing you to keep your culture, as opposed to forcibly changing it or deporting you back to France or french colonies.

I'm sure you could then add all the emotional and punitive

damages that have befallen the rest of Canada because of Quebec.

[Stoker]

And the intention was usually clear... to keep French limited to Quebec. Should make you proud, right?

Who would be proud of a failure?

[CANADIEN]

As I suspected, Stoker, facts are an insult to you.

And here's another fact to you. I have never said that Western Canada should be bilingual. What I have said, and that you cannot disprove, is that it is and should be the right of every Canadian to choose if they will obtain education and government services in the language they personnally choose, either English or French.

And yet another fact. I am not fooled by your "I'm not saying that the right does not exist, just that it shouldn't exist argument". By saying it should not exist, you are denying it. Plain and simple