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

[Guest]

I don't care where people live and I don't believe anyone should dictate where people live. I haven't seen a response on my gay west end community living. Should this demographic be discouraged?

I agree with you, and as a member with a gay family member, I support your efforts, re the gay west end community living.

[Machjo]

I agree. I don't agree because joining or leaving a strata is a major life decision which means you can't put up discriminatory barriers for people already living there or who may want to join in the future. Allowing non-English stratas simply encourages the development of ghettos which is the last thing we want for a healthy society.

Now I'm confused as to the line between agreement and disagreement between us; so if you'll allow me to sum up where I believe we agree and disagree and please correct me if I misunderstood:

1. Where I believe we agree.

If I understand correctly, you do agree -at least in principle- with the idea that a strata company should be legally required to provide service in any written language of any contract that a buyer signed if that contract does not specify any alternative written or spoken linguistic policy.

I also don't get the impression you oppose (or at least not in principle) a corporation specifying its linguistic policy in a contract.

2. Where I really don't know where you stand.

Whereas I believe the government should clearly define linguistic obligations in the law so as to avoid expensive court battles, I get the impression that you might believe it's precisely at the HRC or the courts that this conflict should be settled, but I'm not sure if I read you correctly.

3. Where I believe we disagree.

If I understand you correctly, Whereas I would say that a strata corporation should be entirely free to present a contract in the language of its choice (which even Quebec's Bill 101 allows by the way!) as long as it understands that it will need to present a certified translation in the official language of the province in a contract dispute, and that it should be entirely free to offer services in its official languages according to its freely-chosen linguistic policy as stayed in its agreements, you would say that a strata corporation should be required by law to offer contracts and provide written and spoken services in English regardless of its chosen linguistic policy as stated in any contract.

Also, Whereas I would say that the corporation should be legally required to provide only in the language of the agreed-on linguistic policy or, lacking such, in every language in which any contract was presented, you would say that even if a contract were never presented in a particular language and no linguistic policy inscribed in the contract stipulated that the corporation would provide service in that language, that it should be required to provide service in that language anyway should an owner request it. In short, you would likely view the inscription of any linguistic policy into a contract as meaningless since the strata corporation really shouldn't get to decide but rather provide service in any language requested.

4. Rationale.

Maybe you could explain your rationale, but I'll explain mine here.

1. Impression.

It is reasonable for a buyer to assume unless stated otherwise in the contract that he will be served in the language in which the contract was presented to him, and so it is reasonable for a law to impose this obligation on corporations.

2. Cost and economic efficiency.

Translation and interpretation services are extremely expensive. For this reason, it would reasonable to conclude that unless the contract was presented in a certain language or that the contract stipulates it, the strata corporation should not be legally required to provide services in that language. It's reasonable to assume that if the buyer signed a document that neither included that language nor stipulated it, that there would be no reason for the buyer to have believed that the corporation ever intended to serve in that language. This would allow a corporation to keep its lanfuages and thus costs to a minimum while still respecting any impression it might have given concerning its commitment to service in that language.

3. Justice. The law should not try to give a particular linguistic community an unfair advantage beyond what is required (such as the government adopting an official language of administration for itself).

4. Unity.

Though I could recognize the value of an international auxiliary language (which the nation's of the world will have to choose in the future), the next best option is the promotion of at least a common interpersonal language. Allowing a strata corporation to adopt a single official language should it wish to do so (as long as it respects its linguistic obligations as implied or stated in previous contracts) would help to promote a common language among members.

To promote a common language for a province in the interconnected world we live in today is essentially meaningless. Short of promoting a universal auxiliary language, the next priority should be to promote a common interpersonal language locally where people usually operate in their daily lives. From my experience, though I live in the Province of Quebec (albeit right on the border with Ontario), and lived in Ontario, BC, and abroad before and will probably be moving to Scarborough within the next year, provincial boundaries mean little in the modern world.

[Machjo]

Suppose you were born in Richmond, grew up there, spent your whole life there. This is your home. There were no Chinese when you grew up, but over the last thirty years they began to arrive in droves. They bought up businesses, opened stores, and refused to communicate in English. Now every store's advertising and brochures are in Mandarin. The clerks only speak Mandarin. Why, even the condo board at your condominium only speaks Mandarin.

What was your home for your entire life is now a foreign country to you, and you are not welcome in it. Do you believe this is fair? Do you think government should try to avoid that happening?

I think it is perfectly fair as follows:

1. If it only involved Chinese moving in, then your property value rises with population density and the old English businesses remain, just that Chinese ones have been added in bucketfuls.

2. If it involved not just Chinese moving in, but the English moving out, then don't they forfeit their right to the area by moving out? Who knows, maybe some of them moved abroad too, maybe some even to China.

Isn't it reasonable that the English-speaking community maintain its rights to the degree that it maintains its representation?

I was raised on multiple military bases, always moving around as a kid. So what should have been our community right?

Movement is the reality of the world. We need to learn to adapt to it, not try to suppress what we can't suppress.

And no, local Government should not intervene to keep out-of-towners from moving in.

[TimG]

I also don't get the impression you oppose (or at least not in principle) a corporation specifying its linguistic policy in a contract.

Strata corporations are quasi public entities because they control the space where people live and the costs of buying into or leaving a strata is very expensive for the average person. Therefore the primary language used for Strata business should be English. A Strata is different from a commercial establishment where cost of going to a different establishment that uses the language you use is minimal.

That said, when a significant number of people live in a Strata do not speak English then the Strata should accommodate them by providing translation services. If the duly elected council all speak a non-English language they should obviously be free to use that for closed meetings but all minutes should be recorded in English. If guests/owners choose to attend open meetings the Strata should provide translations services to English if the council is not comfortable using English as the primary language for the meeting.

What should not happen is a scenario were Stratas use language as a means to discourage people who may not speak the language from buying units in the Strata because it encourages the creation of linguistic ghettos.

Edited December 28, 2015 by TimG

[overthere]

Strata corporations are quasi public entities because they control the space where people live and the costs of buying into or leaving a strata is very expensive for the average person.

They are nothing of the sort. They are private corporations with a very specific and narrrow purpose. The only way to have a share/vote is to buy a condo. The attendance at regular board meetings and the language spoken is up to the board to decide. 'GUsests' have no status, unless they are there for a specific purpose on an approved agenda. Same as any meeting, really.

It is prudent that if many persons in the complex speak any language exclusiveley, the minutes should be circulated in those language(s),.

all minutes should be recorded in English.

No, the minutes should be translated to English if the board decides it is prudent to do so. If the owners/shareholders decide that the boards decisions are wrong, they have regular opprtuniities to chage the board and institue a new agenda..

What should not happen is a scenario were Stratas use language as a means to discourage people who may not speak the language from buying units in the Strata because it encourages the creation of linguistic ghettos.

That's just politically correct silliness. If a board in Gatineau chose to run meetings and publish minutes in English(or French) would they be creating a linguistic ghetto?

Edited December 28, 2015 by overthere

[Machjo]

Also, with Chinese outstripping English in Richmond, which is the "normal" community and which is the ghetto: the English or the Chinese?

[TimG]

They are nothing of the sort. They are private corporations with a very specific and narrrow purpose.

Strata corporations are NOT just private businesses. The government has special rules in place deal with the fact that many strata have a diverse set of owners who can have trouble getting along:

https://www.civilresolutionbc.ca/what-is-the-crt/when-can-i-use-the-crt/

Strata corporations are communities of (often diverse) neighbours.

Like any other community, disputes often arise between unit-holders

and their elected strata councils. In response to a perceived lack of an

appropriate forum to address strata property disputes, the British

Columbia government created a new “Civil Resolution Tribunal”.

The CRT is mandatory and handles various claims including:

https://www.civilresolutionbc.ca/what-is-the-crt/when-can-i-use-the-crt/

Strata disputes between owners of strata properties and strata corporations for a wide variety of matters such as:

non-payment of monthly strata fees or fines;

unfair actions by the strata corporation or by people owning more than half of the strata lots in a complex;

unfair, arbitrary or non-enforcement of strata bylaws (such as noise, pets, parking, rentals);

issues of financial responsibility for repairs and the choice of bids for services;

irregularities in the conduct of meetings, voting, minutes or other matters;

interpretation of the legislation, regulations or bylaws; and

issues regarding the common property.

It pretty clear that minority owner groups have a right to appeal the council decision to use Mandarin to the CRT. Since the CRT is new it is unknown how they will react, however, the resolution I suggested is well within the mandate of the CRT and consistent with its spirit of Strata act. Edited December 28, 2015 by TimG

[TimG]

Also, with Chinese outstripping English in Richmond, which is the "normal" community and which is the ghetto: the English or the Chinese?

The ghetto is a reference to the larger society so Richmond could become a Chinese ghetto but it is far from that now since the community is quite diverse. i.e. 70% of the population is a visible minority but less than 50% is Chinese. Of the 50% that is Chinese 20% are Cantonese speakers and 15% are 'unspecified' Chinese speakers. Edited December 28, 2015 by TimG

[WestCanMan]

They are nothing of the sort. They are private corporations with a very specific and narrrow purpose. The only way to have a share/vote is to buy a condo. The attendance at regular board meetings and the language spoken is up to the board to decide. 'GUsests' have no status, unless they are there for a specific purpose on an approved agenda. Same as any meeting, really.

It is prudent that if many persons in the complex speak any language exclusiveley, the minutes should be circulated in those language(s),.

No, the minutes should be translated to English if the board decides it is prudent to do so. If the owners/shareholders decide that the boards decisions are wrong, they have regular opprtuniities to chage the board and institue a new agenda..

That's just politically correct silliness. If a board in Gatineau chose to run meetings and publish minutes in English(or French) would they be creating a linguistic ghetto?

You're wrong on all counts overthere.

Strata Councils make decisions with the effect of enforceable legal contracts and as such they need to be conducted in an official language when participation from non council members is permitted, because contracts which cannot be understood are unenforceable.

If a strata meeting is conducted as a closed-door session then it doesn't matter what language it is conducted in because noone else is affected.

[WestCanMan]

I think you'remind confusing an official language with a de facto language of government administration. Though I do not believe BC has an official language (though please correct me by linking to the appropriate law), English is its de facto language of government administration. Chinese and Punjabi aren't. This means the BC Government uses Englishould as a convention, not because any law requires it to.

The US Federal Government and the Government of THE UK have no official language either.

As for languages on food labeling, that is a Federal responsibility, so that must be in French and English in most cases.

Now we could ask the qiestion: should BC adopt an official language? But it does not have one at present.

Like I mentioned in my last post, a party to a contract that doesn't have the capacity to understand it can't be bound by it. In Canada that means that it needs to be formed in either english or french unless all the parties to it agree to form it in another language. Any meeting that leads to the formation of a contract in an unofficial language won't hold up against english or french speakers in court. That's pretty basic imo.

The strata needs to hold sessions which are closed to all non-members if they want to speak in Mandarin.

I wish I had a vote at those meetings, they'd be epic.

[H10]

During a particular period, say prior to the Tories, the previous liberal governments embraced the idea of multiculturalism but that has since largely been abandoned, except by progressives. Diversity is one of those things the media and political elites embrace, but which can cause enormous problems if it develops into ethnic enclaves with more commitment to their home countries and home cultures than this one.

There is certainly alot of pushback on this board, don't get me wrong, but this is not the position of the federal, government, neither the conservatives or liberals (the text I saw were under conservative governments). And you cannot honestly think Harper opposed this type of ethnci enclaves when he brought in so many Chinese into the country and Israeli jews, who tend to be amongst the more insular groups who create these ethnic type enclaves. You'll have Chinatowns or jewtowns. Some immigrant groups don't build these but they weren't invited in. Firstly, the immigrants who tend to do the best are the ones who rely on their countrymen already here to find them opportunities and this tends to be the case more so in the ones who are poorly assimilated and least integrated who build up their own communities with clearly ethnic identifying marks. The Chinese, the jews, with jew temples, jew buildings, jew real estate developments etc.

Now I may indeed agree with you that it CAN be problematic, and I might agree, if presented with evidence it is a bad idea, I don't know that to be the ccase, but the federal government goes to China, india, israel etc. saying you can come to canada and form your own ethnic based ethnic enclave, it include the Harper conservatives who helped constructed these in markham (chinese) and Brampton (Indian). In fact Harper made numerous trips to major Bramptom based Indian temples. It is my view politicians may prefer this because when people are in nice groups, you get to play to the group instead of the individual.

However, the real problem in Canada, from my view is there are no "Canadians". There are no ethnic canadians, the ethnic group who had the largest role in establish the state -english canadians- main loyalty is to well, England and the queen. They never even wanted independence, England cut them off because they didn't want to defend Canada from USA in the invent of a war. You see it in Harper's actions. The whole idea of ethnic enclaves start with the french and english. The french never had to assimilate after losing a war, the english never wanted to form a separate nation and want to be part of England and worship a queen. so how can you tell a chinaman he must all of a sudden stop being chinese? the english and frenchman are still acting french and english, NOT canadian. I sure wish it wasn't this way, but its plain old hypocrisy.

[H10]

The ghetto is a reference to the larger society so Richmond could become a Chinese ghetto but it is far from that now since the community is quite diverse. i.e. 70% of the population is a visible minority but less than 50% is Chinese. Of the 50% that is Chinese 20% are Cantonese speakers and 15% are 'unspecified' Chinese speakers.

Well if the Chinese in Richmodn are a chinese ghetto, are white people in white majority cities in canada, white ghettos?

[H10]

There are many ethnic enclaves in the States too, do you think people behave any differently just because of some label like "mulitcultural" or "melting pot"? There are 422 different languages spoken in the States, compared to 177 in Canada. Why do you think things are so much different in the States in that regard?

The wholesale price of tea in Albuquerque is $5.45 per pound. See we can both say things that are entirely irrelevant.

Did I say the United States did not have ethnic enclaves? Did I say that having a melting pot culture would ban anyone from forming ethnic enclaves? Did I say a melting pot would ban 422 languages?

The Mosaic vs the melting pot deal with how the government approach immigration and that is all. It is the official policy, people are free humans, they can do as they please. It would be like me pointing out the official policy is marijuana is illegal and you come up with all kinds of exceptions to try to say it isn't the policy. Sure millions of people smoke weed, have medical exemptions, etc, but that doesn't change the policy.

When the governments official policy is that you must become American and integrate people will behave differently than when the official policy you can keep your culture and not change a damn thing. As for differences in languages, there can be multiple factors. 1 is that America is the number one receiver of immigrants on the face of the earth for the last 200+ years. America receives several times the immigrants Canada does on a yearly basis. america also neighbours Mexico which is linguistically quiet rich which sends over tons of illegal immigrants. People coming from Asia or African villages never heard of canada, but everyone knows America.

Additionally, US has way more diverse American Indian groups. There are over 400 federally recognized tribes, whose contribute to 216 of those 422 languages. In otherwords, There are more languages spoken by American Indians than ALL of the Canadians combined. So if America never had a single immigrant, it would STILL be more diverse than Canada

[Machjo]

The ghetto is a reference to the larger society so Richmond could become a Chinese ghetto but it is far from that now since the community is quite diverse. i.e. 70% of the population is a visible minority but less than 50% is Chinese. Of the 50% that is Chinese 20% are Cantonese speakers and 15% are 'unspecified' Chinese speakers.

So French Quebec is a ghetto compared to English in Canada, English Quebec is a ghetto in Quebec, and the English-speaking world is a ghetto in the world considering that some languages are more spoken than English worldwide. With even Chinese representing not even a quarter of the world's population, we could say that even the Chinese world is a ghetyo.

So who doesn't live in a ghetto?

[Machjo]

Like I mentioned in my last post, a party to a contract that doesn't have the capacity to understand it can't be bound by it. In Canada that means that it needs to be formed in either english or french unless all the parties to it agree to form it in another language. Any meeting that leads to the formation of a contract in an unofficial language won't hold up against english or french speakers in court. That's pretty basic imo.

The strata needs to hold sessions which are closed to all non-members if they want to speak in Mandarin.

I wish I had a vote at those meetings, they'd be epic.

If two people freely agree to sign a contract in Klingon, then that Klingon contract would be legally enforceable. The defendant would just need to hire a certified translator to translate it in the event of a contract dispute in court.

I've read Quebec's Bill 101 and even it explicitly states that a legally binding contract can be signed in any language the two parties agree to as long as the business has offered to present a French version.

Should the other party turn down the offer, then no French version need exist.

Are you saying BC's linguistic laws are even stricter than Quebec's?

[Machjo]

There is certainly alot of pushback on this board, don't get me wrong, but this is not the position of the federal, government, neither the conservatives or liberals (the text I saw were under conservative governments). And you cannot honestly think Harper opposed this type of ethnci enclaves when he brought in so many Chinese into the country and Israeli jews, who tend to be amongst the more insular groups who create these ethnic type enclaves. You'll have Chinatowns or jewtowns. Some immigrant groups don't build these but they weren't invited in. Firstly, the immigrants who tend to do the best are the ones who rely on their countrymen already here to find them opportunities and this tends to be the case more so in the ones who are poorly assimilated and least integrated who build up their own communities with clearly ethnic identifying marks. The Chinese, the jews, with jew temples, jew buildings, jew real estate developments etc.

Now I may indeed agree with you that it CAN be problematic, and I might agree, if presented with evidence it is a bad idea, I don't know that to be the ccase, but the federal government goes to China, india, israel etc. saying you can come to canada and form your own ethnic based ethnic enclave, it include the Harper conservatives who helped constructed these in markham (chinese) and Brampton (Indian). In fact Harper made numerous trips to major Bramptom based Indian temples. It is my view politicians may prefer this because when people are in nice groups, you get to play to the group instead of the individual.

However, the real problem in Canada, from my view is there are no "Canadians". There are no ethnic canadians, the ethnic group who had the largest role in establish the state -english canadians- main loyalty is to well, England and the queen. They never even wanted independence, England cut them off because they didn't want to defend Canada from USA in the invent of a war. You see it in Harper's actions. The whole idea of ethnic enclaves start with the french and english. The french never had to assimilate after losing a war, the english never wanted to form a separate nation and want to be part of England and worship a queen. so how can you tell a chinaman he must all of a sudden stop being chinese? the english and frenchman are still acting french and english, NOT canadian. I sure wish it wasn't this way, but its plain old hypocrisy.

My experience says that English Canada and French Canada do behave like separate nations. I often get the impression that when many people say 'Canadian,' they consciously or subconsciously mean English-Canadian, French-Canadian, or Anglo-French Canadian.

I also believe that when many people say'Canada,' they consciously or subconsciously mean English-Canada, French-Canada, or Anglo-French Canada.

[Argus]

I have seen no valid reason to not have them.

One of the most important issues facing western countries which take in immigrants is making certain we can integrate them into our societies. When you fail, you develop angry blocks of resentful 'foreigners' living within your borders who feel more kinship with foreigners than with their supposed fellow natives. We can see how this leads to violence in Britain, France, Sweden, and other countries.

[Argus]

I think it is perfectly fair as follows:

1. If it only involved Chinese moving in, then your property value rises with population density and the old English businesses remain, just that Chinese ones have been added in bucketfuls.

2. If it involved not just Chinese moving in, but the English moving out, then don't they forfeit their right to the area by moving out? Who knows, maybe some of them moved abroad too, maybe some even to China.

Do you think only money matters? Would you sell your passport for a reasonable profit? Maybe they felt a kinship for their home, after living their all their lives. Government policies should never be designed to destroy a community or replace it with an entirely new community without the consent of those who were living there.

Isn't it reasonable that the English-speaking community maintain its rights to the degree that it maintains its representation?

And what if they can't move on? What happens then? They remain, festering with anger and resentment towards the newcomers.

I was raised on multiple military bases, always moving around as a kid. So what should have been our community right?

Your reality is not the same as others. Some were born and grew and aged in the same place, never moving from the town or city they grew up in. There's an awful lot of emotional attachment in those cases.

[Argus]

Also, with Chinese outstripping English in Richmond, which is the "normal" community and which is the ghetto: the English or the Chinese?

And using Richmond as an example, who thinks it wise to continue importing millions of people to make us minorities in our own land?

[Argus]

There is certainly alot of pushback on this board, don't get me wrong, but this is not the position of the federal, government, neither the conservatives or liberals (the text I saw were under conservative governments).

No, the federal parties are in lockstep on this issue, even though their opinion diverges from that of Canadians as a whole. This has often been the case, where the political and media elites manufacture a sort of universal opinion and then portray anyone who disagrees as some sort of extremist. It was what led to the rise of the Reform Party, when the putative 'conservative' party had no conservative policies or beliefs, and supported the other parties 100% on abortion, the death penalty, bilingualism, multiculturalism and immigration, among other topics.

Maybe this country does need some kind of proportional rep so that new parties can emerge which honestly represent the opinions and beliefs of Canadians as a whole. Certainly the mainstream parties are not doing so on many issues.

[Machjo]

Do you think only money matters? Would you sell your passport for a reasonable profit? Maybe they felt a kinship for their home, after living their all their lives. Government policies should never be designed to destroy a community or replace it with an entirely new community without the consent of those who were living there.And what if they can't move on? What happens then? They remain, festering with anger and resentment towards the newcomers.Your reality is not the same as others. Some were born and grew and aged in the same place, never moving from the town or city they grew up in. There's an awful lot of emotional attachment in those cases.

But even airforce brats want to settle somewhere eventually. I'd hate to say that I have no right to contribute to my new community since I wasn't raised there.

The new residents pay taxes like the old. No one has the right to suppress the freedom of an airforce brat because he enjoyed the privilege of living in the same city all his life.

Good for him. He also had a lifetime to adapt to the fracking place whereas I have to adapt on the spot. If I have to adapt to the real world, then so does he. Why should I sacrifice my right for his privileges because he was lucky enough to live in the same place all his life Whereas I wasn't?

If that's the attitude, then maybe we should choose an island in Canada (I'd choose the Island of Montreal myself) where the children of diplomats, military personnel, and international entrepreneurs etc. could settle and live in a truly open city (maybe declare the island a Special Administrative Region that would be open to trade, work, and immigration). After all, our kind have a very different life experience tHan that of provincials. We are used to moving, adapting, being the outsiders, and so should have a right to our own city that reflects that dynamism. Provincials would be free to remain in their ghettos if they wish, and we'd have our cosmopolitan city open to the world, just what we are used to, freedom in a welcoming city.

But of course the provincials even as far away as Richmond BC would oppose that too, saying that while they won't welcome our globetrotting kind there, Canada shouldn't welcome us anywhere. After all, their parents didn't choose to join the airforce, so our parents could have done the same. Why should they suffer for our parents' decisions?

When a person is used to moving around all his childhood, he definitely sees the world differently from the one who was raised In the confines of his ghetto.

[Machjo]

And using Richmond as an example, who thinks it wise to continue importing millions of people to make us minorities in our own land?

Who's 'we?' I feel like a minority of one everywhere. Or are you referring to some ethnic collective?

[Machjo]

Now that I think about, my binational upbringing (French-Canadian mother and British father) and military-childhood background has likely influenced me more than I realise. The combination of not identifying purely as a French Canadian or English Canadian made me feel comfortable living as a minority (French speaker in BC or English-speaker in Quebec), and my geographical uprootedness made me feel comfortable seeking work abroad.

This probably explains my later interest in Esperanto after having had to learn a few languages already. This upbringing has likely contributed to developing my belief that the individual has the obligation to learn to adapt to his environment and not that the Government must serve him in his own language.

I suppose there is an irony in that a so seemingly nationalist upbringing (i.e. in both official languages on various military bases) should have made me so cosmopolitan whereas a person with a monolingual civilian upbringing (which one would stereotype as less nationslist) should become such a nationalist.

I guess a multilingual and mobile upbringing will tend towards a more cosmopolitan world view making it very difficult for me to understand the nationalist mind.

[eyeball]

Really? How about you tell me what I "prescribe and preach" which is likely to lead to ethnic enclaves.

You prescribe fear and you preach loathing.

Perhaps I can learn and reform my opinions.

I doubt it.

[eyeball]

One of the most important issues facing western countries which take in immigrants is making certain we can integrate them into our societies. When you fail, you develop angry blocks of resentful 'foreigners' living within your borders who feel more kinship with foreigners than with their supposed fellow natives. We can see how this leads to violence in Britain, France, Sweden, and other countries.

I'd say the biggest problem facing the world including the west is our failure to ensure the economy is just and fair. Resentment against that is building everywhere and even more so where people exacerbate things by introducing racial or cultural aspects to the failure.