B.C. condo language dispute sparks human rights complaint (merged with

Machjo · January 3, 2016

Let's be honest. Had it not been for all the 'statist linguistic intervention' by government over the last century and a half Quebec would largely be an English speaking province.

And yes, I'm quite confident about English. Cut off the flow of newcomers from China and the remainder will gradually integrate into Canada and learn the same language as everyone else.

Had it not been for the residential school system, large swaths of Canada today would likely speak neither English nor French. And to say 'I'm confident about the future of English as long as we stop Chinese immigration' translates in my book as 'I'm not confident about the future of English without immigration and other laws to promote its progress.'

TimG · January 3, 2016

Had it not been for the residential school system, large swaths of Canada today would likely speak neither English nor French.

Nonsense. The residential school system affected maybe 1/3rd of natives at its peak. The decline of aboriginal languages has more to do with their lack of usefulness and small population bases than any government policy.

Machjo · January 3, 2016

Nonsense. The residential school system affected maybe 1/3rd of natives at its peak. The decline of aboriginal languages has more to do with their lack of usefulness and small population bases than any government policy.

I don't know the situation in the rest of Canada, but in BC Wawa served as a lingua franca sometimes in parts of the province, even in some urban centres like parts of Kamloops, until the 1930's. Given that the residential school system had started in the 1800's, likewise the Chinese Exclusion Act, the Indian Act, and discriminatory immigration policies favoring British immigration first, Europeans second, I can't imagine that these policies did not contribute to the demise of Wawa as a lingua franca. I could be wrong about the residential schools. Maybe discriminatory immigration and other policies played a greater role, maybe it was a combination of all of these policies combined, but the indigenous languages certainly did not decline through the operation of the free market.

Argus · January 3, 2016

I'm curious. Do you have any knowledge of the Chinese immigration policies, especially here in BC?

We don't have any policies specific to China.

Argus · January 3, 2016

Had it not been for the residential school system, large swaths of Canada today would likely speak neither English nor French. And to say 'I'm confident about the future of English as long as we stop Chinese immigration' translates in my book as 'I'm not confident about the future of English without immigration and other laws to promote its progress.'

I would suggest your knowledge of Mandarin is not equaled by your knowledge of English, then, because your translation is ... silly.

Any linguistic group can be swamped, especially regionally, by bringing over millions of people from another group.

TimG · January 3, 2016

I don't know the situation in the rest of Canada, but in BC Wawa served as a lingua franca sometimes in parts of the province, even in some urban centres like parts of Kamloops, until the 1930's.

A language that had no usefulness out of the region. The school system paid for by the BC government taught English which ensured that everyone learned it. Once everyone knew English there was no need to hold onto a regional dialect.

Every country in the world has gone through the same process where regional dialects/languages are gradually wiped out via the school system. This is not a bad thing. A common language is essential to functioning society.

eyeball · January 3, 2016

We don't have any policies specific to China.

Pity eh?

Clearly she means our old immigration policies that were specific to China. They went from bad to worse and would probably be the sort of template many around here would like to see while adding some severity for good measure.

Machjo · January 3, 2016

I would suggest your knowledge of Mandarin is not equaled by your knowledge of English, then, because your translation is ... silly.

Any linguistic group can be swamped, especially regionally, by bringing over millions of people from another group.

That's false logic. The ASL community maintains itself with minimal government assistance and the government probably even discriminates against it in immigration policy. The Chinese community in Canada is more swamped by English and French than vice versa and is also at a disadvantage over the British and the French when writing the immigration test, yet it still thrives. The Esperanto-speaking community in Canada has sustained itself for many decades in spite of no official recognition and general prejudice against it.

Yet you are saying that even the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guaranteeing protection for English isn't enough to protect English from extinction, but that we need protection for English in immigration policy too. I have more confidence in my English than you do in yours. That's why I tend to favour more protection for a sign language, the local indigenous language, and an international auxiliary language: because I have full confidence in the ability of English to thrive even where it has no official recognition.

Machjo · January 3, 2016

We don't have any policies specific to China.

We used to: the Chinese Exclusion Act. Maybe you could write to your MP proposing that Canada re-introduces it.

Machjo · January 3, 2016

A language that had no usefulness out of the region. The school system paid for by the BC government taught English which ensured that everyone learned it. Once everyone knew English there was no need to hold onto a regional dialect.Every country in the world has gone through the same process where regional dialects/languages are gradually wiped out via the school system. This is not a bad thing. A common language is essential to functioning society.

Given that even many English, French, Chinese, etc. learnt Wawa in the 1800's (which by the way few ever spoke as a mother tongue even among indigenous peoples), it would seem it had more usefulness than English.

As English growing, yes the regular school sysyem helped, but that alone would not have sufficed without being accompanied by the Indian Act and the residential school system, the Chinese Exclusion Act and the head tax, discriminatory immigration policy in favour of British or at least European immigration, etc. Again, it was not due to the free market but a calculated wielding of governmental power by the English in collusion with the French (which continues to this day).

TimG · January 3, 2016

Given that even many English, French, Chinese, etc. learnt Wawa in the 1800's (which by the way few ever spoke as a mother tongue even among indigenous peoples), it would seem it had more usefulness than English.

Not if you wanted to trade with people outside of the region or understand newspapers or other printed material. As I said before: every country in the world has gone through a process where regional dialects are discouraged in favour of a common language. This is a GOOD thing because it promotes social cohesion. The primary means to accomplish this was through the school system. I would not have an issue if English died out if there was a credible alternative common language. But there is not so English is the common language in Canada outside of Quebec.

As English growing, yes the regular school system helped, but that alone would not have sufficed

It was sufficient in Japan, the UK, China, Germany, etc. In some of those places the dialects survived (e.g. China) even as the society adopted the common language because the population base was large enough but in many cases the dialect died out.

The residential schools only affected a minority of natives - at their peak. Natives were also a minority in BC by 1930 and there is little chance of the immigrants had any particular attachment to a language dialect used by a few thousand people. The population base was too small to sustain that dialect no matter what the government did.

Edited January 3, 2016 by TimG

Machjo · January 3, 2016

At least we agree that the English language spread not by some happy accident of the free market but by the English wielding the sword, whether that sword manifested itself through the muskets of British soldiers or through the laws and constitution of the Canadian state.

It would seem that where we disagree is on the morality of wielding that sword.

We might just have to agree to disagree on that point.

TimG · January 3, 2016

At least we agree that the English language spread not by some happy accident of the free market but by the English wielding the sword, whether that sword manifested itself through the muskets of British soldiers or through the laws and constitution of the Canadian state.

And the same thing happened in China, Japan, Germany et. al.

It would seem that where we disagree is on the morality of wielding that sword.

A language is a tool. Saying a society should not have a common language is like saying that society should not have a common system of weights and measures. The only time policies to promote a common language become wrong is when they actively seek to eliminate secondary languages instead of simply making it clear that everyone needs to be able to conduct business in the primary language. Edited January 3, 2016 by TimG

Machjo · January 3, 2016

Government language policy has no business in the private sector. Of course if a private business can choose the official language if its choice, Government administration should have the same right to adopt its official language of Government administration. And of course businesses will have to interact with the government in the government's language.

Beyond that, the Government has no business telling business what tool to use. Business will naturally use the most efficient tool in its box.

Do you not trust the laws of supply and demand?

TimG · January 3, 2016

Government language policy has no business in the private sector.

Everyone should be able to conduct business with everyone else if they so choose. That requires a common language. Two individuals may choose to negotiate a transaction in another language, however, that does not mean they don't need the ability to use the common language with others who do not understand the secondary language.

What we don't want is society fracturing into linguistic solitude where no one communicates with each because they don't have a common language.

Governments have a role in regulating a system of weights and measures and they also have a role in regulating the language used for commerce for the same reason. The free market cannot function without a government establishing a baseline set of rules that everyone follows.

Edited January 3, 2016 by TimG

Argus · January 3, 2016

That's false logic. The ASL community maintains itself with minimal government assistance and the government probably even discriminates against it in immigration policy.

If you're talking about sign language, it's alive because of a lack of alternatives.

The Chinese community in Canada is more swamped by English and French than vice versa and is also at a disadvantage over the British and the French when writing the immigration test, yet it still thrives.

Because of tens of thousands of newcomers coming into Canada every year from China. That is what I'm proposing we put a stop to. So those here would have time to integrate into Canada.

The Esperanto-speaking community in Canada has sustained itself for many decades in spite of no official recognition and general prejudice against it.

You're talking about a hobby language, like Klingon. It's not a real language and almost no one speaks it. It is not in daily use anywhere.

Argus · January 3, 2016

We used to: the Chinese Exclusion Act. Maybe you could write to your MP proposing that Canada re-introduces it.

We probably should reintroduce it, for a few decades, anyway. But no one in any party is going to propose anything so politically incorrect, no matter how much sense it makes.

Machjo · January 3, 2016

Everyone should be able to conduct business with everyone else if they so choose. That requires a common language. Two individuals may choose to negotiate a transaction in another language, however, that does not mean they don't need the ability to use the common language with others who do not understand the secondary language.What we don't want is society fracturing into linguistic solitude where no one communicates with each because they don't have a common language.Governments have a role in regulating a system of weights and measures and they also have a role in regulating the language used for commerce for the same reason. The free market cannot function without a government establishing a baseline set of rules that everyone follows.

You're free to boycott those businesses that don't serve you in your language. But if they still thrive, why cry to the government for their success? Rememver, businesses also must consider international tourists, international students, the export market, etc. If the locals ate all beoke, then businesses will gravitate towards the money. Who are we to impose unnecessary translation costs to serve those who won't buy much of their product anyway. The world is much smaller today.

Edited January 3, 2016 by Machjo

Machjo · January 3, 2016

We probably should reintroduce it, for a few decades, anyway. But no one in any party is going to propose anything so politically incorrect, no matter how much sense it makes.

Maybe we could prohibit intermarriage too unless both partners share English as a common language, just to be sure, eh.

While we'really at it, we could sterilize women who don't know English. Perhaps we could treat raising a child in a language other than English as child abuse and confiscate the children to put them in English-speaking foster homes. Heck, we could do many things to ensure the dominance of English. Now the question is, how far do you propose we move in that direction?

Machjo · January 3, 2016

Also, how is it that you say public once sufficed to ensure the dominance of English but now we need the Chinese Exclusion Act?

Argus · January 3, 2016

Also, how is it that you say public once sufficed to ensure the dominance of English but now we need the Chinese Exclusion Act?

What I said is that languages will naturally intermingle and the lesser will be absorbed by the greater, for it will no longer have any real purpose to exist. The only things which interfere with that are government actions, as in the effort to preserve French, and a continuing high volume flow of migrants speaking a particular language.

Machjo · January 3, 2016

What I said is that languages will naturally intermingle and the lesser will be absorbed by the greater, for it will no longer have any real purpose to exist. The only things which interfere with that are government actions, as in the effort to preserve French, and a continuing high volume flow of migrants speaking a particular language.

But the glow of migrants has nothing to do with government actions. On the contrary, it had to do with lack of government action (i.e. allowing the free movement of people). What you are proposing is government action because you believe English dominance can't survive without it. I say if it can't survive without it, then let's let the market decide what language is truly the most useful. Most bureaucrats who enforce the laws have never worked in the private sector.

Argus · January 3, 2016

But the glow of migrants has nothing to do with government actions.

Nonsense. It is government policy which controls immigration.

Edited January 3, 2016 by Argus

Machjo · January 3, 2016

Nonsense. It is government policy which controls immigration.

And government controls taxes too. To lower taxes involves permissive Ness (permitting people to keep their money), while raising taxes involve action (taking the money). Lowering taxes involves reducing government involvement while raising taxes increases involvement.

We can draw the same parallel with immigration. To allow immigration is a passive policy of less state interference. To restrict immigration is an active policy of prohibition. So supporting immigration is supporting a more hands-off, free-market approach, Whereas opposing immigration is to support greater state interference in the free market, especially in international tourism, trade, and education, and possibly marriage too, the ultimate in state interference.

Machjo · January 3, 2016

To say government should exercise its powers in immigration policy just because it can is the same as saying it should raise taxes just because it can.

But when the intent is to promote Aryan policy, that's even worse.