Conseil Scolaire du District Centre Sud Ouest

[Michael Hardner]

Actually learning Spanish or for that matter Chinese makes more sense than learning French. These languages are more prominent on the world stage.

Ok. I was addressing your point about foreign languages, but your point is taken.

You can learn what you want.

The point is for years an artifical demand has being created pertaining to the French language especially relating to employment in the federal public service and spread and promoted federally into provinces and cities in a very discriminatory manner.

Again, point taken. But there has also been the general idea of promoting national unity through bilingualism. Whether it has been successful or not is debatable.

Obliterating English and associated jobs to accomodate minority French when the provinces are not officially bilingual is carring on the battle of 'the plains of abraham" federally promoted is a bit extreme wouldn't you think?

You're plowing though a bunch of false assumptions, again, but I see what you're getting at.

Official bilingualism hasn't worked in satisfying Quebec, so maybe removing it would be the best for all involved. If people want to learn French, Spanish, or Urdu in high school or university, though, let them do it.

[Leafless]

Michael Hardner

You wrote- " But there has been the general idea of promoting national unity through bilingualism. Whether it has been suucessful or not is debateable."

Promoting bilingualism is one thing and installing bilingualism forcefully is another thing and this is what the federal government has been doing outside of Quebec after it has been rejected by Canadians.

For instance if the federal government ever tried installing bilingualism in Quebec like it has especially Ontario you would have a social uprising.

In Ontario it has been relatively successful thanks to the efforts of mayor of Ottawa Bob Chiarelli a staunch supporter of bilingualism and admitted federal Liberal supporter and provincial Premier of Ontario Dalton Mc.Guinty a Federal Liberal supporter of bilingualism.

You also wrote- "Your plowing through a bunch of false assumtions, again."

Like what??

[Michael Hardner]

I'm taking your points, and learning that there's something to what you post even when I have to step through factual mistakes. Please take that in good faith, and understand that I'm trying to work with you on these discussions.

Some examples:

Why is Canada not officially bilingual?

Because it was rejected by Canadians.

Canada is officially bilingual.

I doubt very much if Spanish is taught in any Canadian primary or public school at tax payers expense.

Spanish has been taught at taxpayer expense, as has been esperanto, yoga, and women's studies.

[Leafless]

Michael Hardner

You wrote- " Canada is officially bilingual."

If I had a dollar for every time I went over this one I'd be a rich person.

How can you possibly perpetuate such a myth?

Canada has two official languages English and French and this does not make the country officially bilingual but a country that contains two official languages.

There is one province in Canada that is designated officially bilingual and that is New Brunswick no other province is officially bilingual so in fact the country is not officially bilingual.

You also wrote- " Spanish has been taught at tax payers expense, as been yoga, and women's studies."

Clearly you mean their are classes available with courses in Spanish, yoga and women's studies rather than whole schools devoted to those individual subjests at tax payers expense.

Their are only two schooling systems in Canada publicly paid for to perpetuate the official languages of Canada English and French with Quebec offering much less than what is to be desired relating to the promotion of English and offers no bilingualism policies anywhere in Quebec as well discriminates with it's French charter against the English language and it's users.

[Leafless]

seabe

You wrote- " Perhaps it would be more appropiate to refer to the 20th of April, 1760 Battle of Sainte- Foy."

That battle was meaningless not in the sense of lost lives but rather to the fact General Levis retreated to Montreal and surrendered regardless, to the British and their overwhemling forces.

[Michael Hardner]

If I had a dollar for every time I went over this one I'd be a rich person.

How can you possibly perpetuate such a myth?

Canada has two official languages English and French and this does not make the country officially bilingual but a country that contains two official languages.

There is one province in Canada that is designated officially bilingual and that is New Brunswick no other province is officially bilingual so in fact the country is not officially bilingual.

Ok. Pardon my ignorance.

What is the difference between two official languages and officially bilingual.

Clearly you mean their are classes available with courses in Spanish, yoga and women's studies rather than whole schools devoted to those individual subjests at tax payers expense.

Yes. Because that's what I thought you meant when you said:

"I doubt very much if Spanish is taught in any Canadian primary or public school at tax payers expense."

Their are only two schooling systems in Canada publicly paid for to perpetuate the official languages of Canada English and French with Quebec offering much less than what is to be desired relating to the promotion of English and offers no bilingualism policies anywhere in Quebec as well discriminates with it's French charter against the English language and it's users.

Again, your point is taken.

I don't think we're disagreeing on much here. Just a few points that I'm not understanding for whatever reason.

[iamcanadian2]

There is a big difference between French Emersion (something provided by regular school boards in Ontario to attract Non-french Canadians to study French by total emersion) and the Conseil Scoliare du District Centre Sud Ouest that are Separatist Isolationists Public School Boards in Ontario to congreagate the Children of French Canadian Families like they are a Religious Cult to keep all Non-French aways from them and avoid contaminatinig their pristeen utopian culture.

http://www.csdcso.on.ca

This whole public school board does everything only in French. There are no English documents, english translations or any effort whatsoever to be open serving Non-french Canadians for using their services, like what is the model for French Emergence.

They don't want Non-French Canadian Children attending their schools and do everything to avoid becoming accessible anyone who does not already speak French. Though they may deny it becaus it is illegal to refuse to provide education to anyone regardless of race creade or culture, they simply don't make themselves available and treat anyone Non-French they do deal with, like MERDE.

Shutting obviously abusive organizations liek this down should be democratically possible if Non-French Canadians gather together and stand up against these public abuses.

[Leafless]

Michael Hardner

You wrote- " Ok. Pardon my ignorance. What is the difference between two offical languages and officially bilingual."

The provinces that contain the people that are supposed be designated 'offically bilingual' are in fact non-existent, except for one New Brunswick that is classified 'officially bilingual'.

Two 'official languages' do not speak anything and cannot communicate with one another without provinces and people designated as such and who possess those capabilities.

Canada is simply a country with two separate offical languages with a single province designated 'officially bilingual.'

[iamcanadian2]

Michael Hardner

You wrote- " Ok. Pardon my ignorance. What is the difference between two offical languages and officially bilingual."

The provinces that contain the people that are supposed be designated 'offically bilingual' are in fact non-existent, except for one New Brunswick that is classified 'officially bilingual'.

Two 'official languages' do not speak anything and cannot communicate with one another without provinces and people designated as such and who possess those capabilities.

Canada is simply a country with two separate offical languages with a single province designated 'officially bilingual.'

Most People are Unilingual in thatt they speak one language better than any other and a second language they can pass by with. There are very few people that can speak two languages perfectly equally well.

Canada is a Unilingual Country like every other with Two Official Languages that are spoken in different parts of the Country.

Our problem is that we force people to learn and use one of the official languages even if they don't want to, which is ignorant and stupid and has turned the French Language in Canada to MERDE for many people.

[Michael Hardner]

Our problem is that we force people to learn and use one of the official languages even if they don't want to, which is ignorant and stupid and has turned the French Language in Canada to MERDE for many people.

Yes, we force them to do that in high school just as we force them to take Canadian history, Algebra, gym and other subjects they might not want to take.

Official Bilingualism - or Dual Unilingualism - may have failed but if we're going to agree to abandon it, let's understand that it was attempted with the best of intentions.

[Leafless]

Michael Harner

You wrote- " Official bilingualism or dual bilingualism-may have failed but if were going to agree to abandon it, let's understand it was attempted with the best of intentions."

Is this simply your opinion or can you supply proof that bilingualism was implemented not to obliterate the English language that could result and has resulted to a significant degree with a minority language advancing it's French language and ideoligies into a majority English culture to basically control the job market in the ROC on a linguistic basis similar to the discriminatory 'official bilingualism policy' in the federal government.

Bilingualism has always been a one way street with the emphasis on English Canada with Quebec free and not encouraged by the federal government not to participate.

I've always found it confusing French bilingual speaking Canadians always enjoyed identifying themselves as 'francophone' which means 'French speaking person', when in fact their are few French speakers that are not already bilingual unlike their English counterparts who are English speaking only. This in reality destroys the necessity of majority English speakers becoming bilingual as the natural demand to influence English speakers to become bilingual does not exist in the province of Quebec like it does in the ROC to encourage minority French speakers to learn English.

The French did not learn english out of the kindness of their hearts---they did it to obtain English jobs.

[Michael Hardner]

Is this simply your opinion or can you supply proof that bilingualism was implemented not to obliterate the English language that could result and has resulted to a significant degree with a minority language advancing it's French language and ideoligies into a majority English culture to basically control the job market in the ROC on a linguistic basis similar to the discriminatory 'official bilingualism policy' in the federal government.

A hefty sentence, Leafless.

No I can't disprove a far-reaching conspiracy of any sort, nor can you. I can say that people aren't that evil, and that I knew many people in the 1970s who believed that this policy would unify Canada. And, of course, many of them have changed their position.

If you really mistrust people that much, I would say that discussing issues with them on a web board isn't a productive use of your time. How do you know I'm not an agent dispatched here to spread the lie that government officials try to do the best thing for Canada ?

Bilingualism has always been a one way street with the emphasis on English Canada with Quebec free and not encouraged by the federal government not to participate.

That's a double negative. It they're not encouraged to not participate, then they're encouraged to participate. I'll put this down as a typo.

Historically, the idea came as a 1970s response to separatism, and the situation then of a cultural minority (Anglos) dominating the Quebec culture. Of course, a lot has changed since then. It's a different time.

I've always found it confusing French bilingual speaking Canadians always enjoyed identifying themselves as 'francophone' which means 'French speaking person', when in fact their are few French speakers that are not already bilingual unlike their English counterparts who are English speaking only. This in reality destroys the necessity of majority English speakers becoming bilingual as the natural demand to influence English speakers to become bilingual does not exist in the province of Quebec like it does in the ROC to encourage minority French speakers to learn English.

There are two sides to every coin, though. The fact that Quebeckers are highly bilingual is taken by them as proof of cultural dominance from Anglos on every side.

The French did not learn english out of the kindness of their hearts---they did it to obtain English jobs.

And because English media dominates their culture unlike any North American official language.

This might fall under your definition of 'forced to learn another language'.

As with any cultural clash, there are two sides to it and reason and empathy is required on both sides to find common ground. I can accept the idea that English Canada isn't happy with bilingualism, or with Quebec's continued calls for more rights and so forth.

I'm not sure if you're the best person to be involved in such a dialogue, though, as you seem to believe:

"can you supply proof that bilingualism was implemented not to obliterate the English language"

If you think you're being taken advantage of, then I suppose furthermore that you want Quebec out of confederation.

[Michael Hardner]

The French did not learn english out of the kindness of their hearts---they did it to obtain English jobs.

I re-read this part of your post.

I suppose Quebec asked for American TV channels to be beamed into their province. It's not that hard for Quebeckers to learn English. Yes, some of them learn it to be more marketable but is this so bad ? Many firms that operate out of Quebec also deal with the ROC and the US.

Do you think other groups should stick to their own language in the ROC ? Immigrants for example ?

[Leafless]

Michael Harder

You wrote- " No I can't disprove a far reaching conspiracy of any sort, nor can you."

It was not I who said " let's understand it was attempted with the best of intentions" relating to bilingualism.

Anyone who makes a positve statement as this obviously has no doubt whatsoever that this is the truth, which is overstating or exaggerating and could very well be considered false without proof.

There are other ways to express your approval.

You wrote- " the fact that Quebecers are highly bilingual is taken by them as proof of cultural dominance from Anglos on every side."

So what!

Again Canada is not 'officially billingual' and the emphasis is not on the English to change their majority language.

And if this is happening in Quebec it proves Quebec is unable to manage and support it's French culture with French jobs.

Without resorting to discriminatory French Charter tactics ( which incidentally the federal government continues to do nothing about) Quebec should come to it's senses and admit the prospect it's French society is a failure on it's own and should sucumb to linguistic assimilation.

This cultural blackmail as gone on long enough and as only succeeded in the sense of forcing the federal government to continue to support Quebec's French linguistic cultural infrastructure within the confines of Quebec at the very high cost of all tax payers in Canada particularly Alberta and Ontario.

You also wrote- " If you think your being taken advantage of then I suppose futher more that you want Quebec out of confederation."

Quebec as been seeking this without my coaxing.

Quebec is a 'big boy' now and should recognize it is their responsibility to look after, attract investment to finance their own culture.

Cultural blackmail is not exactly 'the man's way out' of Quebec's unsolvable internal cultural problems.

[Michael Hardner]

Michael Harder

You wrote- " No I can't disprove a far reaching conspiracy of any sort, nor can you."

It was not I who said " let's understand it was attempted with the best of intentions" relating to bilingualism.

Anyone who makes a positve statement as this obviously has no doubt whatsoever that this is the truth, which is overstating or exaggerating and could very well be considered false without proof.

I agree that it's a positive statement.

Unfortunately, it can't be proven as no device has yet been invented that will look into men's hearts.

If you don't think that the Liberals of the 1970s were trying to build a better country, then you must believe them to be evil.

I don't agree with the CPC, with Harper on most things, nor did I agree with Mulroney but I believe that all of these people fulfill their promises to act in the best interests of the country.

You wrote- " the fact that Quebecers are highly bilingual is taken by them as proof of cultural dominance from Anglos on every side."

So what!

Again Canada is not 'officially billingual' and the emphasis is not on the English to change their majority language.

And if this is happening in Quebec it proves Quebec is unable to manage and support it's French culture with French jobs.

Without resorting to discriminatory French Charter tactics ( which incidentally the federal government continues to do nothing about) Quebec should come to it's senses and admit the prospect it's French society is a failure on it's own and should sucumb to linguistic assimilation.

Is the fact that the French in Quebec speak English so well something that Quebeckers should be faulted for or not ?

Pick a side.

You also wrote- " If you think your being taken advantage of then I suppose futher more that you want Quebec out of confederation."

Quebec as been seeking this without my coaxing.

I'll take that as 'yes'.

The way that the government has dealth with the cultural divide hasn't exactly ingratiated Qubeckers to Canada either. If the solution that was provided was such a fantastic advantage to that country, they sure don't think so.

The current status quo should end soon, then we'll see what happens.

[Leafless]

Michael Hardner

You wrote- " If you don't think the Liberals of the 1970's were trying to build a better country, then you must believe them to be evil."

Agreed!

[Michael Hardner]

You wrote- " If you don't think the Liberals of the 1970's were trying to build a better country, then you must believe them to be evil."

Agreed!

I understand why you feel that way. When I was younger I had no time for anyone with right-wing views. I truly believed them to be bigotted and self-centred individuals. By the time the web arrived, I had softened a bit and believed them to be merely misinformed.

After many hundreds of discussions on boards like MapleLeafWeb, I determined that there seemed to be the same number of smart right-wingers as left-wingers. They had different priorities and principles, but the best of both sides had good ideas and truly believed their ideas were good for society.

People from both sides had elemental beliefs that touched on truisms about people. (Not a good example, but truisms such as people are inherently mostly good or people are inherently mostly bad.) These truisms came from experience, or maybe they were born with these ideas, but like the wave theory and particle theory of light, they complemented each other.

I came to believe that great ideas can come out of the type of create dissonance that left vs right politics engenders. Later, I remembered a description of the early days of American democracy in Neil Postman's book 'Amusing Ourselves To Death'. In the post-colonial period, town hall meetings were used to hash out ideas for local government. Intelligent writings and debates were the basis for the democracy and it worked well.

It seemed to me that our current (dying) age of television was poorly suited to democracy, but thankfully the intenet is well suited to it. I invite you to open your mind and find some good in those who you oppose on these boards. It restored my optimism for democracy, and could do the same for you.

By the way: Personally, I don't think I could live in a country that was run by evil people. I would have left Nazi Germany. I hope you stayed in Canada for all these years out of some sense of hope and positive thinking.

Cheers.

[Leafless]

Michael Harding

You wrote- " Personally, I don't think I could live in a country that was run by evil people."

Evil= "Morally bad; wicked."

Cheer up your not anymore, the Conservatives are back and will rearrange this country accordingly back to a proud democratic country.

[Michael Hardner]

Cheer up your not anymore, the Conservatives are back and will rearrange this country accordingly back to a proud democratic country.

Right.

I'll give them a chance, though. There's little to dislike in the five priorities (This is by design, of course. Last year, Harper discovered that he was a politician.) and I like the fact that had made a clear and focussed platform that everyone could understand.

Then again, I liked the Red Book too and that ended up being a prop. It's up to Harper to do better.

[iamcanadian2]

To assume that all the bilingual bureaucrats and bilingual politicians that got together to draft the new constitution of Canada did not weigh it in the self-interest of the bilingual French Speaking Canadians like themselves is absurd.

People are going to be self-serving if given the chance. I don't how much buying was done at the time, but surely if it was written today with the advanced in communications and the dissaster that the French Language experiment has prooven itself to be it would have been different.

30 years is enough and its time the old poorly written document was ammended. Even the US Constitution whcih was one of the best ever written from the start then went through more than a few revisions as it was put into practice and the problem identified.

It's only words on paper and even though has not all been agreed upon still now.

[Michael Hardner]

To assume that all the bilingual bureaucrats and bilingual politicians that got together to draft the new constitution of Canada did not weigh it in the self-interest of the bilingual French Speaking Canadians like themselves is absurd.

What exactly do you mean by that ? There's a spectrum of meaning that could be derived.

Do you mean that they openly discussed how they themselves would benefit from such an arrangement to the exclusion of other benefits ?

Do you mean that their view of Quebec's place in Canada affected how they thought the country should be put together ?

People are going to be self-serving if given the chance. I don't how much buying was done at the time, but surely if it was written today with the advanced in communications and the dissaster that the French Language experiment has prooven itself to be it would have been different.

Implicit in this is that people are inherently selfish. That's one aspect of human behavior but it doesn't explain all human behavior.

30 years is enough and its time the old poorly written document was ammended. Even the US Constitution whcih was one of the best ever written from the start then went through more than a few revisions as it was put into practice and the problem identified.

It's only words on paper and even though has not all been agreed upon still now.

There's a formula for amendment and maybe the current government may try for this option.

[Leafless]

iamcanadian2

You wrote- " To assume all the bilingual bureacrats and bilingual politicians to draft the new constitution of Canada did not weigh in the self interest of the bilingual French speaking Canadians like themselves is absurb."

Absolutely, and only proves that 'offical languages' were presumed by particularly French politicians 'equal' in nature despite all provinces not being designated 'officially bilngual' and without first being qualified by a 'national referendum'.

This is ample proof in itself to suggest the constitution is fraudulent and is not worth the paper it's written on.

[Michael Hardner]

Absolutely, and only proves that 'offical languages' were presumed by particularly French politicians 'equal' in nature despite all provinces not being designated 'officially bilngual' and without first being qualified by a 'national referendum'.

Absolutely what ? It's not clear what he's saying.

There were two official languages already when the constitution was drafted, so you're saying they presumed that the policy that was in place was indeed in place.

This is ample proof in itself to suggest the constitution is fraudulent and is not worth the paper it's written on.

It proves nothing at all.

To quote an oft-used term around here - national unity is not a zero sum game. They were working towards unifying the country. If you want to ascribe some kind of conspiracy to that, then prove it. Don't just say that it can't be disproven.

[Leafless]

Michael Hardner

You wrote- " Absolutely what? It's not clear what he's saying. There were two official languages when the constitution was drafted, so your saying they presumed that the policy in place was indeed in place."

There are two official languages but they are not 'equal' and never have been equal.

What I am saying is I agree with what was said that the constitution being drafted by bilingual French politicians who acted on behalf of a minority French language with the interest of French Quebec and it's ideologies even though the country is not 'officialy bilingual' or the fact a national referendum was never used to qualify or establish the fact that a constitution can be drawn up without the consent of Canadians utilizing a national referendum and also on the fact Canada is an 'unofficial bilingual country' with two separate official languages that are not equal by law or numbers to any single binding Canadian constitution.

The fact this was done despite the country being offically bilingual and without a national referendum constitutes proof in my mind that our constitution is fraudulent and not worth the paper it's written on.

BTW- Cleary explain what you mean when you said " so your saying that the policy in place was indeed in place".

What policy are you talking about or are you simply trying to confuse the issue or do you even know what you are saying????

You also wrote- "They were working to unififying the country. If you want to prescribe some kind of conspiracy to that then prove it."

Who was working to unify the country---French minority politicians acting in the interest of Quebec who are not in the positon in my opinion to implement anything outside of Quebec without a full parliamentry debate and a national referendum as it was the British who won Canada not the French and Quebec.

If that's not proof I don't know what is.

[Michael Hardner]

What I am saying is I agree with what was said that the constitution being drafted by bilingual French politicians who acted on behalf of a minority French language with the interest of French Quebec and it's ideologies even though the country is not 'officialy bilingual' or the fact a national referendum was never used to qualify or establish the fact that a constitution can be drawn up without the consent of Canadians utilizing a national referendum and also on the fact Canada is an 'unofficial bilingual country' with two separate official languages that are not equal by law or numbers to any single binding Canadian constitution.

The fact this was done despite the country being offically bilingual and without a national referendum constitutes proof in my mind that our constitution is fraudulent and not worth the paper it's written on.

So you acknowledge that the country is officially bilingual ? Good. Now we're getting somewhere.

All of the rest of it is your opinion only and you will not convince anyone unless you add more information.

You say they were doing it to help Quebec, I say it was for national unity. It was done as a response to the 1980 referendum and helped seal national unity.

Here's a reference:

Vigile Article

"This constituted a massive blow to the nationalist cause, which had accumulated substantial political capital by playing on a fundamentally dyadic conception of Canada in which the English "people" were forever slighting "Quebec.""

Did it work ? So far it has. Thirty-odd years after official bilingualism Quebec is still in Canada. People who live in Ontario - the most populous province - are concerned about national unity and are willing to live with official bilingualism in order to keep it together.

BTW- Cleary explain what you mean when you said " so your saying that the policy in place was indeed in place".

This sentence:

" Absolutely, and only proves that 'offical languages' were presumed by particularly French politicians 'equal' in nature despite all provinces not being designated 'officially bilngual' and without first being qualified by a 'national referendum'."

So, you acknowledged above that the federal government had a policy of official bilingualism yet you expected the government to assume the country wasn't officially bilingual when drafting the constitution ?

Confusing.

Moreover, there's a lot more to the constitution, ie. the charter of rights. I'm guessing you don't like that either. Please explain the conspiracy behind that part of the document, as it exists in your mind.

Who was working to unify the country---French minority politicians acting in the interest of Quebec who are not in the positon in my opinion to implement anything outside of Quebec without a full parliamentry debate and a national referendum as it was the British who won Canada not the French and Quebec.

Incorrect. Canadian politicians acting in their self-interest against separatist cause effectively and decisively.

They were not French. They were Canadian. They opposed separatism and their plan has worked so far.

If that's not proof I don't know what is.

You haven't said anything other than calling the politicians "French" (they're not - they were Canadian and opposed to separatism) and bringing in extraneous facts such as the fact that there was no referendum etc.

Who cares if the British won. Really. Who cares. Nobody does, and nobody should. The idea is to solidify a country called Canada. A country of two languages and many peoples.

Calling people "French" doesn't prove any kind of conspiracy outside your own mind.

If you have further proof please furnish it.