Jump to content

Canada's Bilingualism laws prove our intolerance of diversity....It doesn't FAVOR diversity...


Recommended Posts

Any constitution of a country requires being monolingual regarding government or it is hideously anti-democratic. You cannot expect to have a system that favors ALL languages and so if one favors more than one but not ALL proves to FAVOR a SELECT subset of people to rule. The nature of having DISTINCT language rights biases those who do not know BOTH or all selected official languages. 

We have proof of how having different languages creates problems. When the metric system was adopted, the confusion of those who have the old imperialist measures created costly problems of interpretation. These errors, such as the Gimli Glider incident whereby the airplane was fueled half full causing the accident was due to MIXED language factors. This occured costly in Nasa as well. [see Mars Probe Lost Due to Simple Math Translation Errors]

Also, one of the known means of abusers to abuse successfully is to ISOLATE their targeted abusers and operate in SEGREGATION from those who might normally be able to help the victim. [See Isolation to facilitate abuse]. The main reason for those demanding segregate rights under the banner of "Multiculturalism(TM)" is to functionally operate in the same way an abuser does because it both intentionally isolates a subset of people in a way that censors them out from being seen or heard by OUTSIDERS AND intends to foster a means to keep INSIDERS from being able to freely chose to escape such entrapment. 

The recent proposals by Premier François Legault via the CBC article, "Quebec seeks to change Canadian Constitution, make sweeping changes to language laws with new bill" is REDRESSING the original language laws that permitted a segregated monolingualism regardless of our Constitution's formulation of Bilingualism, proves how even offering a constitution to favor them acts to simply EMPOWER the abusive nature of segregation. The extremes get automatic platform for simply offering what is in essence an excuse to foster diversity. It is NOT 'diversity' that those formulating such ideals want as this proves. The rest of Canada is FORCED to accept bilingualism even where other language dominance exists of some area that is neither English nor French. 

[Note that the commenting on that CBC article prevents me from signing in and given they censor it regardless, the content of comments will tend to favor the views of the DESIRE of those creating the article. So don't be surprised if you were to dare to put your input that goes against this article's view. If YOU try but CAN can comment in defiance, let me know. I cannot prove this is intentional against my own known arguments against many issues presented on the CBC but have no means to disprove this is occurring either.]

Another example that can demonstrate comparison is to the Machine language of computers. Each higher order programming language translates to the machine level communication that is strict. IF we find such chips that intentionally have segregated machine languages, we have to assume that it is ONLY for some means to HIDE the means of select individuals to override the power of the computer. This DOES exist with regards to some security measures but the Operating System is what was made to act as this medium. They DO have some althernate hardware areas that act to favor special kinds of programming that would bog down the regular chip. These might for example be for graphics programming. But IF we were to have a literal separate hardware section that has the SAME power as the regular machine code, WE WOULD RIGHTFULLY SUSPECT SOME DEVIANT REASON for it. The same reasoning should point out how those demanding SEGREGATE languages on the FOUNDATIONAL language of a country. 

Note that Apple computers represent a kind of PRIVATE language with the intent to PROPRIATARILY control content separate from all the other OPEN computer hardware architectures. It demonstrates another kind of similar segregation in that it favors the wealthier classes who can afford Apple in contrast to other computers. While this is not necessarily abusive, it at least represents a segregation of people based on what they can afford. These are SEPARATE hardwares though. The example of computer hardware that I'm pointing out that WOULD be troubling is if a particular chip, that represents a whole system like a miniture 'country' constitution, has more than one language!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...