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

[Argus]

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.

You might have had a point a hundred years ago, before there were so many government supplied services like free health care, education, welfare, pensions, etc. Every time uneducated, unskilled people cross our border and are permitted to stay that puts an added financial burden on the state and on taxpaying citizens. As such, it's important for government to control its borders, and who crosses them.

Besides which, national entities have always sought to control migration of foreigners across their borders, especially in large numbers, in order to avoid being colonized by people whose loyalty is questionable.

Edited January 3, 2016 by Argus

[Argus]

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.

Government exercises its powers on immigration every day so I have no idea what you're on about.

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

What the hell is Aryan policy? Do you even know what you're babbling about now?

[Machjo]

You might have had a point a hundred years ago, before there were so many government supplied services like free health care, education, welfare, pensions, etc. Every time uneducated, unskilled people cross our border and are permitted to stay that puts an added financial burden on the state and on taxpaying citizens. As such, it's important for government to control its borders, and who crosses them.Besides which, national entities have always sought to control migration of foreigners across their borders, especially in large numbers, in order to avoid being colonized by people whose loyalty is questionable.

This is perhaps a fundamental difference between us: a radically different view of the welfare state.

Whereas you support what I shall refer to here as a nationalist welfare state (i.e. one that helps only nationals), I support a universal safety net. As an example, supposing we all paid a 20% income tax that was 100% charity-decuctible at a 1:1 ratio, and we were free to give to the charity of our choice (which could even include UNICEF), we would shift from a system guaranteeing a right to social welfare for the Canadian-born to one of an obligation on Canadian residents to help your fellow-man.

As a result, there would be no guarantee that welfare services would be any better in Canada than elsewhere, and so no incentive for the poor to come to Canada.

In some respects, this shows that we are both very consistent. Just as you support government deciding who enters Canada, you also support the government deciding how welfare dollars are spent. You are also consistent in that you want to keep immigration out for ethnic reasons and also want the government to control welfare likewise to ensure the Canadian-born benefit from it.

I'm consistent in that just as I support open immigration, I also support allowing taxpayers to direct welfare dollars domestically or internationally as they prefer without discrimination on the basis,of nationality.

My guess is that we will likely disagree on many other points too, your beliefs being founded on English-Canadian nationalism, mine on universalism.

Edited January 3, 2016 by Machjo

[Machjo]

Another consistency I see is that you support more government interference in language policy in favour of English-Canadian nationalism, Whereas I support language policy applying only to the language of government administration and second-language learning in an international auxiliary language.

Again, the English-Canadian nationalism on your part and the universalism on mine likely inform many of of our ideas, which might explain the irreconcilable differences on so many points.

[TimG]

Who are we to impose unnecessary translation costs to serve those who won't buy much of their product anyway.

Some businesses may find they can sell product using pounds and quarts. That does not mean they should be relieved of the expense of having scales that measure in grams and liters as well as long as they are businesses selling goods to the public in Canada. Edited January 3, 2016 by TimG

[ironstone]

How would this story have played out if the board members at this condo spoke english only and refused to speak french?There would have been a national outcry in the mainstream media.

[Argus]

This is perhaps a fundamental difference between us: a radically different view of the welfare state.

I think the fundamental difference is I appear to know a lot more about math and budgeting than you do, and have a way more realistic view of the possible.

Whereas you support what I shall refer to here as a nationalist welfare state (i.e. one that helps only nationals), I support a universal safety net. As an example, supposing we all paid a 20% income tax that was 100% charity-decuctible at a 1:1 ratio, and we were free to give to the charity of our choice (which could even include UNICEF), we would shift from a system guaranteeing a right to social welfare for the Canadian-born to one of an obligation on Canadian residents to help your fellow-man.

No, we would shift to anarchy, with no government services to speak of, and mass poverty. I don't regard this as an improvement.

As a result, there would be no guarantee that welfare services would be any better in Canada than elsewhere,

So we should contribute one fifth of everything we earn to foreigners and let our own people starve? I don't think so.

My guess is that we will likely disagree on many other points too, your beliefs being founded on English-Canadian nationalism, mine on universalism.

No, my beliefs are founded on logic and realism and yours seem to be founded on pie-in-the-sky kookiness.

Edited January 4, 2016 by Argus

[Machjo]

How would this story have played out if the board members at this condo spoke english only and refused to speak french?There would have been a national outcry in the mainstream media.

My argument would have been as follows:

The board should be obligated to provide service in any language as defined in the language policy presented in the contract any buyer signed or, in the absence of such, in the language in which the contract was presented.

This would mean that unless the language policy defined on the contract specified that the board would provide service in French or, in the absence of any linguistic policy in the contract, that the buyer had signed a French version of the contract, that the board ought to have no obligation to serve him in French.

In this case, since I presume that the plaintiffs in question had signed their purchase agreements in English and that the documents they signed specified no linguistic policy, the board should therefore be contractually required to serve the plaintiffs in English. Of course if I'm wrong and the purchase agreements that they'd signed specified that the board would serve them in Chinese, or that they'd signed a Chinese-only agreement, then the board should have no such obligation.

That said, that's just me. I could imagine many French Canadians insisting on their right to be served a 7-Up in French on an international Air Canada flight even if it forces Air Canada to hire a French-speaker over an ASL speaker.

[Machjo]

I think the fundamental difference is I appear to know a lot more about math and budgeting than you do, and have a way more realistic view of the possible. No, we would shift to anarchy, with no government services to speak of, and mass poverty. I don't regard this as an improvement.So we should contribute one fifth of everything we earn to foreigners and let our own people starve? I don't think so. No, my beliefs are founded on logic and realism and yours seem to be founded on pie-in-the-sky kookiness.

No. We should have more say in how our money is spent. You could give to the United Way if you want to.

My condolences if you depend on that money and can't compete with foreign workers.

[TimG]

In this case, since I presume that the plaintiffs in question had signed their purchase agreements in English

It is a requirement in BC that all real estate contracts be in English because that is the only thing the Land Titles Branch will accept. In addition any strata bylaws must be in English because BC courts need to be able to read them when resolving disputes. So you are effectively agreeing that the legal language for commerce in BC is a language that must supported by Strata Councils in BC. Edited January 4, 2016 by TimG

[Machjo]

It is a requirement in BC that all real estate contracts be in English because that is the only thing the Land Titles Branch will accept. In addition any strata bylaws must be in English because BC courts need to be able to read them when resolving disputes. So you are effectively agreeing that the legal language for commerce in BC is a language that must supported by Strata Councils in BC.

In a sense. I think the plaintiffs should be served in English because the contracts they signed were in English and did not specify any official linguistic policy. If I understand you correctly, you believe they should be served in English just because it's the de facto language of BC government administration.

We agree the board should serve the plaintiffs in English, but for different reasons.

[Machjo]

My argument is a Contractual one, yours seems to be based on a form of nationalism.

[Machjo]

Certainly if the law requires the contract to be in English, and the board did not intend to serve the plaintiffs in English, then it should have specified its linguistic policy in its contracts. By not doing so, it committed to serving them in English, and of course they can't change the agreement retroactively without the purchasers' consent, which means that the board, though past negligence, should now be obligated to serve the owners in English.

[TimG]

My argument is a Contractual one, yours seems to be based on a form of nationalism.

No. My argument has nothing to with nationalism. I am arguing that the language used to pass laws is the 'default' language and any legally relevant services need to be provided in that language. In the case of a Strata Council the meetings are legally relevant and any minutes must be in English. When the council holds open meetings where owners are allowed to attend then they must also provide translation services to English if they are not comfortable in English. Obviously none of that says that other languages cannot also be used should the owners decide there is a need. Edited January 4, 2016 by TimG

[WestCoastRunner]

We don't have any policies specific to China.

Policies have been implemented while not directly aimed at China and Hong Kong but have resulted in far less applications being accepted due to lack of language skills and over abundance of wealth. Isn't that what you want?

[Argus]

Policies have been implemented while not directly aimed at China and Hong Kong but have resulted in far less applications being accepted due to lack of language skills and over abundance of wealth. Isn't that what you want?

What I do not want is false Canadians buying passports so they can keep them in their safes in Hong Kong. Nor do I want immigrants coming here and working as taxi drivers or security guards their entire lives. Our immigration system costs us over $20 billion a year, and if it's not going to bring people over who are going to be economically successful, and thus paying income taxes, then it should be shut down and re-tooled.

[WestCoastRunner]

What I do not want is false Canadians buying passports so they can keep them in their safes in Hong Kong. Nor do I want immigrants coming here and working as taxi drivers or security guards their entire lives. Our immigration system costs us over $20 billion a year, and if it's not going to bring people over who are going to be economically successful, and thus paying income taxes, then it should be shut down and re-tooled.

So you are basically dictating what jobs immigrants/refugee should fill. Is that correct?

Are you saying security guards and taxi drivers are not economically successful?

Edited January 4, 2016 by WestCoastRunner

[Argus]

So you are basically dictating what jobs immigrants/refugee should fill. Is that correct?

An immigrant who comes here and works a low wage job is not contributing enough economically to either make up for the cost of bringing him over here, or the money spent on government services provided for him. What, then, is the point in bringing this individual here in the first place? An immigrant who is not paying income tax is a failed immigrant, in terms of economics.

[WestCoastRunner]

An immigrant who comes here and works a low wage job is not contributing enough economically to either make up for the cost of bringing him over here, or the money spent on government services provided for him. What, then, is the point in bringing this individual here in the first place? An immigrant who is not paying income tax is a failed immigrant, in terms of economics.

What if a white Canadian were employed as a taxi driver or in security. Are they pretty much useless to the Canadian economy?

We should perhaps banish white Canadians who are working at minimum wage jobs as well. Maybe Siberia?

Many of these immigrants are working 2 sometimes 3 jobs to provide for their families including children. These children when they graduate and become citizens will contribute to the Canadian economy to allow us boomers to health care and pensions. You seem to apply short term thinking to much of your well thought out responses.

Edited January 5, 2016 by WestCoastRunner

[Smallc]

That's the thing isn't it - someone has to do those jobs.

[Argus]

What if a white Canadian were employed as a taxi driver or in security. Are they pretty much useless to the Canadian economy?

As far as contributing to the tax base which provides government services, yes.

30% of the income earners do not make enough to pay income tax. That's bad enough without us importing more.

[WestCoastRunner]

As far as contributing to the tax base which provides government services, yes.

30% of the income earners do not make enough to pay income tax. That's bad enough without us importing more.

For gods sake. Give your head a shake. You have no understanding of life in Vancouver, Montreal or Toronto.

[Argus]

For gods sake. Give your head a shake. You have no understanding of life in Vancouver, Montreal or Toronto.

I have no idea how your statement relates in any way to the one you are replying to.

[WestCoastRunner]

I have no idea how your statement relates in any way to the one you are replying to.

I'm not sure either. Here are a few facts.

Taxi drivers make pretty good money and were it not for immigrants, we would be in short supply of drivers and security guards

You may live in a community with white taxi drivers and white security guards but I do not. Were it not for them, we'd be driving home drunk in our vehicles.

[overthere]

An immigrant who comes here and works a low wage job is not contributing enough economically to either make up for the cost of bringing him over here, or the money spent on government services provided for him. What, then, is the point in bringing this individual here in the first place? An immigrant who is not paying income tax is a failed immigrant, in terms of economics.

You are lumping refugees- a small part of the total intake annually- with far more numerous regular immigrants, who are generally self sufficient and not permitted to access social services. And many of the refugees(and some non-refugee immigrants) are privately sponsored, which means their sponsors assume all costs for the first year or more. Oh and most refugees start their lives off here in debt to the CDN govt, they are obliged to pay processing fees.