The costs and wastes of official bilingualism

[Machjo]

That's nice. I can guarantee you that I know a hell of a lot more Deaf people than you do and many of them have had piss poor educations due to residential schools that were oppressive and abusive. I also know that even the ones who do read English, it's their second language. When you're dealing with doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc., do you want to write back and forth in your second language or would it be better to have it interpreted into your first language? Particularly where people's lives are on the line or there's legal issues, the last thing you want is for someone to seem to understand something but they've made a mistake because they're working in their second language.

And that's where official bilingualism is a problem. In official unilingualism (English in English Canada and French in French Canada for example), then government offices could give hiring priority to English-ASL or English-Chinese in Burnaby or French-LSQ bilinguals, and unilingual English and French could just suck it up.

If the government want to guarantee some right to English in Quebec or French in BC, then why not a 'meet-us-partway policy. For example, if the government offered Esperanto (five to ten times easier to learn than English) civil servants in BC could learn that and Quebec travelers to BC could learn it too. That way, Nunavummiut could benefit from it too.

How do the deaf, Chinese-Canadians, IR Nunavummiut benefit from official bilingualism?

[Machjo]

When did you CHOOSE to get service in English?

Given that both English and French are oral languages, would English-ASL bilingualism not be less redundant for Air Canada?

[?Impact]

At a conference in Beijing in 2004, I'd met someone who worked in the UN building in New York who said outside the Assembly Room, in the hallways, etc. informally they all switched to English. They use the other languages only in formal contexts for show.

Yes, and go to a UN building in Geneva or Montreal and they probably switch to French. In Vienna they probably speak German. I'm not sure what they speak in Nairobi. There are many other UN facilities around the world as well, but those are the major ones I am aware of.

I understand your suggestion on auxiliary languages, but it has the additional problem of them having almost zero native speakers and very few people who have learned any of them as a second language. Esperanto has been around for well over a century, but has almost zero traction. There are far more people who know Morse code (yes, I know not a language) than Esperanto. Probably the language with the most traction is the simplified core English used for air and marine communications, thought that was far too simple to express anything but the most rudimentary commands and status.

[Bryan]

When did you CHOOSE to get service in English?

I have made that choice many times. I was happy that I was able to do so, but I never expected it to be my right.

[Machjo]

The purpose of bilingualism is to protect the language and culture from dying out. The French (and also the Inuit and First Nations) have a right to retain their language and culture. It's easy to get overwhelmed by English since it's the dominant language on the continent. As a society, we value the preservation of culture so it has been codified in a way that prevents it from dying out. It's as simple as that.

(In the 1700s, it was more about preventing rebellions and frankly today the threat of secession is dead but not gone.)

Read Book I of the Report. Contrary to your assertion, it explicitly defines the 'two founding races' as 'Canadians of British and French origin' apart from 'the other ethnic groups' to the explicit Exclusion if 'the Indians and the Eskimos.' That's from Book I, General Introduction, Paragraph 21.

Book I, Chapter 1, paragraph 19 then distinguishes between us and the various Asian and African cultures.

Official bilingualism is very much a reactionary ideology against the others.

[Bryan]

I can guarantee you that I know a hell of a lot more Deaf people than you do

Several deaf people in my family, so I highly doubt that.

[Machjo]

For those who think official bilingualism is a progressive ideology, here's a quite from the Wikipedia article:

The introduction to Book I of the report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism published on 8 October 1967, states:

Our terms of reference contain no allusion to Canadas native populations. They speak of 'two founding races,' namely Canadians of British and French origin, and 'other ethnic groups,' but mention neither the Indians nor the Eskimos.

Book II Chapter V.E of the same report, published on 23 May 1968, states that the governments policy with reference to indigenous Canadians is to integrate these students as completely as possible into the existing provincial school systems.

This last statement is reinforced by the Honourable Jean Chrétien, Minister of Indian Affairs, in Statement of the Government of Canada on Indian Policy (the White Paper) presented in 1969 when he states that the Indian culture can be preserved, perpetuated and developed only by the Indian people themselves.

[Machjo]

And a second quote from Wikipedia:

The Report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, Book I, General Introduction, Paragraph 19, states:

"Still, as we have pointed out earlier, there is such a thing as a French culture and a British culture. Of course, the differences between them are not as great as they would be if either were compared to one of the many Asian or African cultures. In Canada, the Anglophones and the Francophones wear the same sort of clothing, live in the same sort of houses, and use the same tools . They are very similar in their social behaviour, belong to religions which are not exclusive, and share the same general knowledge. To a greater or lesser extent, they share a North American way of living."

[cybercoma]

Several deaf people in my family, so I highly doubt that.

That's nice. I actually work with the Deaf community.

[Machjo]

That's nice. I actually work with the Deaf community.

So according to your knowledge, which would benefit the deaf community the most?

1. Official bilingualism and personal bilingualism. In other words, Fédéral agencies operate officially unilingually in the dominant local language but each employee must know a second language, whether French, English, ASL, Ojibwe, Chinese, Esperanto, etc.?

2. Official bilingualism Canada wide where hiring preference always goes to the bilingual in English and French over other bilinguals, possibly the only exception being departments that specialises in the deaf community as a community apart.

1 or 2, and why?

[Machjo]

Yes, and go to a UN building in Geneva or Montreal and they probably switch to French. In Vienna they probably speak German. I'm not sure what they speak in Nairobi. There are many other UN facilities around the world as well, but those are the major ones I am aware of.

I understand your suggestion on auxiliary languages, but it has the additional problem of them having almost zero native speakers and very few people who have learned any of them as a second language. Esperanto has been around for well over a century, but has almost zero traction. There are far more people who know Morse code (yes, I know not a language) than Esperanto. Probably the language with the most traction is the simplified core English used for air and marine communications, thought that was far too simple to express anything but the most rudimentary commands and status.

Who cares about a mother tongue? The advantage of an IAL is that it's multiple times easier to learn than a national language, so everyone can learn it well in no time flat. I'd taught taught myself Esperanto with a self-instruction book, a dictionary, and 100 hours if self instruction. I'd met Chinese in China who's done it in 300 hours of self-instruction. At an hour a day, that's not even a year. An IAL is a no-brainer. Edited July 9, 2016 by Machjo

[Machjo]

Sorry, ignore this post. Double post.

Edited July 9, 2016 by Machjo

[Bryan]

That's nice. I actually work with the Deaf community.

Let's see. "work with" vs "live with". Add to that, living with deaf people means you are ALWAYS "working with" the deaf community. Nice try though.

[Machjo]

One problem in discussions between anonymous participants is that no claim matters. Only logical analysis does since the logic of it proves itself. Nothing wrong with making anecdotal claims of course, jut that on its own it advances no argument in an anonymous online forum.

You can have a PhD in deaf linguistics for all I care. But on here, it's logical analysis that counts.

[Machjo]

So Cybercoma and Bryan, what concrete policy change would you propose to the Constitution to improve the lot of the Deaf in a just and efficient manner?

[Machjo]

And why?

[?Impact]

An IAL is a no-brainer.

So was Sony Betamax, but it got no traction either.

[Bryan]

So Cybercoma and Bryan, what concrete policy change would you propose to the Constitution to improve the lot of the Deaf in a just and efficient manner?

I would not make any such change to the constitution.

And why?

The law of unintended consequences. The cost would outstrip the benefit, and courts would increase those costs on each go round.

Edited July 9, 2016 by Bryan

[Machjo]

I would not make any such change to the constitution.

So you'd leave the Constitution as is?

[Bryan]

So you'd leave the Constitution as is?

I'd make english the only official language in the constitution, and leave all matters of accommodation for local variances on language needs to the local governments.

[Machjo]

I'd make english the only official language in the constitution, and leave all matters of accommodation for local variances on language needs to the local governments.

The vast majority of Quebecers is not even functional in English. The only way I could see your proposal working would be through extreme devolution of powers to the provinces, leaving the Federal Government to deal with currency, citizenshio, international trade, border security, national defense, and international relations and nothing more.

And even that would be hard for Quebecers to swallow.

[Machjo]

Now I am in favour of extreme decentralisation with the Federal Government handling only what all of the provinces agree the Federal Government could handle better. But even then, if you de-officialize French, you'd have to include at least some easy language in the mix. For example, English and Esperanto. At least that way there's a language in the mix that any Canadian could learn quickly if he lacks the aptitude to learn a more difficult language like English.

[Bryan]

The vast majority of Quebecers is not even functional in English. The only way I could see your proposal working would be through extreme devolution of powers to the provinces, leaving the Federal Government to deal with currency, citizenshio, international trade, border security, national defense, and international relations and nothing more.

And even that would be hard for Quebecers to swallow.

Which is why I said:

leave all matters of accommodation for local variances on language needs to the local governments.

Let Quebec implement french wherever they want it.

[Machjo]

Which is why I said:

Let Quebec implement french wherever they want it.

For for example, would Canadian forces in Quebec function in French? Would French be printed on the currency? Would laws and the Constitution be in French?

Would Federal offices in central Québec need to include English?

[Peter F]

Why hire an illiterate in the working language?

what illiterate?