jbg Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 bk is right. New Brunswick is the only offically bilingual province. I may not have expressed myself clearly. I think having any language designated as "official" is a very serious mistake. While I am virulently opposed to multi-culturalism, and espouse a strong Anglosphere alliance, I believe that the language policy and use should be driven by demand. In New York City, the urban center I am most familiar with, parts have signage in English and Chinese, parts in English and Spanish, and parts English only. I prefer for the decision as to which language to print such governmental attributes as signage and government forms to be driven by people's need to cope with government, and government's needs to serve its citizens. I am against the kind of politicization that the Official Languages Act, and parellel Charter provisions, have generated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FTA Lawyer Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 Actually jbg, here in southern BC I would be better off learning Mandarin and Hindi.... but those two languages are not the official languages of Canada. French and English are both official languages in this country. This is not going to change. And I do not see what the problem is. As usual Drea, you are misrepresenting facts. French and English are NOT the official languages of Canada, they are the official languages of our federal government. On a more important provincial basis, they are only official in a single province, that being New Brunswick. I can't believe that I'm getting myself into this mess at this late stage, but someone needs to tune you in a bit Leafless... You keep telling others to read the Charter but I seriously doubt that you have ever done so yourself. Otherwise you likely wouldn't have made the whole argument that English and French are not official languages of Canada based on your ill-founded Federal / Provincial distinction. Even you have to agree that the 1982 constitutional amendments were not unilaterally imposed by the Feds. Section 16(1) of the Charter reads as follows: 16(1) English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and government of Canada. Other than Quebec can you tell me which provinces you suggest have not signed off on this characterization of English and French as the official languages of Canada? FTA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leafless Posted January 9, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 bk is right. New Brunswick is the only offically bilingual province. I may not have expressed myself clearly. I think having any language designated as "official" is a very serious mistake. While I am virulently opposed to multi-culturalism, and espouse a strong Anglosphere alliance, I believe that the language policy and use should be driven by demand. In New York City, the urban center I am most familiar with, parts have signage in English and Chinese, parts in English and Spanish, and parts English only. I prefer for the decision as to which language to print such governmental attributes as signage and government forms to be driven by people's need to cope with government, and government's needs to serve its citizens. I am against the kind of politicization that the Official Languages Act, and parellel Charter provisions, have generated. You are right. It is presenting a fraudulent situation for federal linguistic rights to overide provincial language rights and for the federal government to ignore its bilingual obligations in Quebec while promoting it in provinces outside of Quebec. I have checked with the office of the premier of Ontario and although English is one of Canada's official federal languages used in Ontario by the majority, it is not the language used to designate Ontario as a provincial UNILINGUAL OFFICIALLY English ONLY province. Quebec on the other hand has UNILATERALLY provincially declared itself provincially OFFICIALLY FRENCH making it the only LEGAL language of commerce in Quebec. In other words there is no legal emphasis (in Quebec) to cater to the English language if the province or Quebec companies choose not to do so. I only WISH ENGLISH would be, the unilingual language of Ontario, including all other provinces in Canada that incorporate that language as the majority language. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leafless Posted January 9, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 Actually jbg, here in southern BC I would be better off learning Mandarin and Hindi.... but those two languages are not the official languages of Canada. French and English are both official languages in this country. This is not going to change. And I do not see what the problem is. As usual Drea, you are misrepresenting facts. French and English are NOT the official languages of Canada, they are the official languages of our federal government. On a more important provincial basis, they are only official in a single province, that being New Brunswick. I can't believe that I'm getting myself into this mess at this late stage, but someone needs to tune you in a bit Leafless... You keep telling others to read the Charter but I seriously doubt that you have ever done so yourself. Otherwise you likely wouldn't have made the whole argument that English and French are not official languages of Canada based on your ill-founded Federal / Provincial distinction. Even you have to agree that the 1982 constitutional amendments were not unilaterally imposed by the Feds. Section 16(1) of the Charter reads as follows: 16(1) English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and government of Canada. Other than Quebec can you tell me which provinces you suggest have not signed off on this characterization of English and French as the official languages of Canada? FTA English and French are the official languages of Canada under FEDERAL CONTROL not PROVINCIAL CONTROL. If provinces have the right to language control in their respective provinces, how then can it be said English and French are Canada's official languages when the country consist of TEN INDEPENDENT PROVINCES independent of federal language control. If the official languages of Canada are English and French, Canadian provinces then would be 'officially bilingual', which they are not outside of New Brunswick, who VOLUNTARY legally provincially designated themselves 'officially bilingual' and not by the workings of the federal government. This makes it a clear case of federal linguistic discrimination against the majority English language when it has no majority public mandate to force its bilingual desires on the country of Canada utilizing public tax money. This can be seen as especially true since the country is designated 'officially multicultural' as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted January 11, 2007 Report Share Posted January 11, 2007 This makes it a clear case of federal linguistic discrimination against the majority English language when it has no majority public mandate to force its bilingual desires on the country of Canada utilizing public tax money. This can be seen as especially true since the country is designated 'officially multicultural' as well. Having "official languages", and especially forced use of a minority language does serious damage to both the unity and economy of a country or region (link). Little is gained by turning a country into a Tower of Babel. This is particularly true where the primary language is also the world language of business. Economic development and progress should, in most cases, trump the political ambitions of politicians who seek to be a "big fish in a small pond" (think Levesque, Parizou and the like). The main beneficiaries of "language politics" are politicians, such as the Bloc and PQ in Canada, and Fernando Ferrar in the US. The problem is the victims are the ones they're allegedly "helping". These people would be best served by learning English at a fast and furious rate, the same way my ancestors did. I doubt that Joseph Pulitzer, the father of the Pulitzer Prize, focused on lingual rights of Hungarians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 12, 2007 Report Share Posted January 12, 2007 I wonder if I can bring the Quebec Provincial Government to trial for making its hazard roadsigns ONLY in french, therefore, reducing the risks to french speaking drivers but not english speaking drivers who don't understand french? To travel from Ontario to New Brunswick, I must pass through Quebec (unless I wish to leave the country...and I don't), so I have no choice but to be exposed to a higher level of danger on Quebec highways because I don't speak french. That's it...I'm suing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted January 12, 2007 Report Share Posted January 12, 2007 I wonder if I can bring the Quebec Provincial Government to trial for making its hazard roadsigns ONLY in french, therefore, reducing the risks to french speaking drivers but not english speaking drivers who don't understand french? To travel from Ontario to New Brunswick, I must pass through Quebec (unless I wish to leave the country...and I don't), so I have no choice but to be exposed to a higher level of danger on Quebec highways because I don't speak french.That's it...I'm suing. CBCYou can take it up with the UN, it's been done. Bill 101 is a disgrace to democracy and freedom. To say Quebec is a civilized society with a law like that is hypocracy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leafless Posted January 12, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 12, 2007 I wonder if I can bring the Quebec Provincial Government to trial for making its hazard roadsigns ONLY in french, therefore, reducing the risks to french speaking drivers but not english speaking drivers who don't understand french? To travel from Ontario to New Brunswick, I must pass through Quebec (unless I wish to leave the country...and I don't), so I have no choice but to be exposed to a higher level of danger on Quebec highways because I don't speak french. That's it...I'm suing. CBCYou can take it up with the UN, it's been done. Bill 101 is a disgrace to democracy and freedom. To say Quebec is a civilized society with a law like that is hypocracy. You can pretty well forget about taking it up with the U.N. Canada's gutless feds probably won't have anything to do with it. In 1999 a United Nations tribunal condemned Canada for forcing one of its English speaking citizens in Quebec to take his human rights case to them, when it could have addressed the problem internally. The tribunal said that Canada is taking an UNDEMOCRATIC STANCE on minority language rights in Quebec. The tribunal was perplexed by Canada's lack of concern for HUMAN RIGHTS WITHIN ITS BORDERS after government appointed lawyers showed up at the tribunal and DEFENDED QUEBEC, yet it is a leading advocate of human rights on a global basis. The assault on the principle of 'Freedom of Expression' is another point to note here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted January 12, 2007 Report Share Posted January 12, 2007 I wonder if I can bring the Quebec Provincial Government to trial for making its hazard roadsigns ONLY in french, therefore, reducing the risks to french speaking drivers but not english speaking drivers who don't understand french? To travel from Ontario to New Brunswick, I must pass through Quebec (unless I wish to leave the country...and I don't), so I have no choice but to be exposed to a higher level of danger on Quebec highways because I don't speak french. That's it...I'm suing. CBCYou can take it up with the UN, it's been done. Bill 101 is a disgrace to democracy and freedom. To say Quebec is a civilized society with a law like that is hypocracy. You can pretty well forget about taking it up with the U.N. Canada's gutless feds probably won't have anything to do with it. In 1999 a United Nations tribunal condemned Canada for forcing one of its English speaking citizens in Quebec to take his human rights case to them, when it could have addressed the problem internally. The tribunal said that Canada is taking an UNDEMOCRATIC STANCE on minority language rights in Quebec. The tribunal was perplexed by Canada's lack of concern for HUMAN RIGHTS WITHIN ITS BORDERS after government appointed lawyers showed up at the tribunal and DEFENDED QUEBEC, yet it is a leading advocate of human rights on a global basis. The assault on the principle of 'Freedom of Expression' is another point to note here. UN Hmm. seems like these guys did pretty well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leafless Posted January 13, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2007 I wonder if I can bring the Quebec Provincial Government to trial for making its hazard roadsigns ONLY in french, therefore, reducing the risks to french speaking drivers but not english speaking drivers who don't understand french? To travel from Ontario to New Brunswick, I must pass through Quebec (unless I wish to leave the country...and I don't), so I have no choice but to be exposed to a higher level of danger on Quebec highways because I don't speak french. That's it...I'm suing. CBCYou can take it up with the UN, it's been done. Bill 101 is a disgrace to democracy and freedom. To say Quebec is a civilized society with a law like that is hypocracy. You can pretty well forget about taking it up with the U.N. Canada's gutless feds probably won't have anything to do with it. In 1999 a United Nations tribunal condemned Canada for forcing one of its English speaking citizens in Quebec to take his human rights case to them, when it could have addressed the problem internally. The tribunal said that Canada is taking an UNDEMOCRATIC STANCE on minority language rights in Quebec. The tribunal was perplexed by Canada's lack of concern for HUMAN RIGHTS WITHIN ITS BORDERS after government appointed lawyers showed up at the tribunal and DEFENDED QUEBEC, yet it is a leading advocate of human rights on a global basis. The assault on the principle of 'Freedom of Expression' is another point to note here. UN Hmm. seems like these guys did pretty well HOPEFULLY you are referring to the absence of federal representation. The U.N. wanted nothing to do with Canada's language problems, which is perfectly understandable, especially considering a country that boast leadership in human rights. If Canada can't sort this out, who can, outside of a civil war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted January 16, 2007 Report Share Posted January 16, 2007 HOPEFULLY you are referring to the absence of federal representation. The U.N. wanted nothing to do with Canada's language problems, which is perfectly understandable, especially considering a country that boast leadership in human rights. If Canada can't sort this out, who can, outside of a civil war. If it isn't Israel the UN don't care. They don't even care about real atrocities such as Dharfur. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.