3,500 City of Ottawa Jobs to be bilingual

[Argus]

That would help to explain why we have so many mediocre and incompetent judges on the benches now.

Why would bilingual candidates make less competent judges than non-bilingual candidates?

Because when you make the basic screening criteria for the position one that is unrelated to legal acumen you wind up with inferior candidates.

This is absolutely basic logic. I find it bizarre how confused it gets you.

Basic logic? Since one has the right to a court trial in the language of either English or French how does that fit logic? Maybe all the good ones learn the other language, you know for advancement . No....that couldn t be the case.

If I repeat myself in larger letters, and maybe draw pictures, will you be able to understand? The priority screening for a judge ought to be legal knowledge and judgment. Is that too complex for you? Do I need to repeat it? In French maybe? Only a tiny, miniscule percentage of cases in Ontario will be heard in French. It is therefore absurd to screen all judges on the basis of fluency in French.

So it follows to your learned ways French = stupid.

Establishing a screening priority for french = stupid. Certainly.

[Kapitän Rotbart]

Yeah, but wasn't it the federal gov't who declared Canada officially multicultural? That would fall under Trudeau's mischievous schemes, right?

Trudeau was responding to Quebec's cultural demands or in fact could have been working on behalf of Quebec to establish a large degree of linguistic prominence. This is a fact when you consider originally it was biculturalism not multiculturalism.

Québec didn't care about language issues outside of its own province. Québec wanted to seperate, and Trudeau wanted to convince Québec otherwise (with bribes and so forth and so on). No country would ever declare itself bicultural, no one would take a "bicultural" country seriously. Canada never had "biculturalsim" because there were always many cultures, even within the two spoken languages, so biculturalism never would have been accurate.

However, looking on the bright side, cultural diversity helps Canada avoid the problems found in countries like France, where the government wants to assimilate everyone within their borders, yet failing at integrating their immigrant population.

Multiculturalism was not made policy to accommodate immigrants but rather to accommodate Quebec's linguistic prominence. The only reason biculturalism was not made policy was because of Western demands that bicuturalism did not properly reflect the cultural diversity of Western Canada, so multiculturalism was adopted but with the same intent relating to biculturalism, concerning Quebec..

Of course Canada wants immigrants to assimilate, but to suggest Canada is successful at this requires proof. I think Canada is the same boat as France relating to successful immigrant integration and all one has to do is look at the cultural mess in cities like Toronto.

Biculturalism did not properly reflect the cultural diversity of any single province! It seems two you that Eastern Canada was of two cultures, whereas both Lower and Upper Canada had many European nationalities and people from other continents living in Eastern Canada, so even without the West, biculturalism would be very inaccurate.

In fact, Toronto is not really a "cultural mess". Toronto has always been Canada's most dangerous city, yet there are no "minority revolts" in the T dot as there were in France. Toronto is now the world's most multicultural city in the world, with over 300 spoken languages (New York City has over 140 spoken languages), and caucasians are actually a minority in the T dot. Multicultural or not, Toronto would be dangerous either way. It's pretty cool that Torontonian ATM UIs (Automated Teller Machine User Interfaces) are in English, French and Chinese, that Torontonian broadcasts television and radio in Italian, that I could get virtually any ethnic food in the 416 and have people from different backgrounds scheming marketing, foreign investment, international development and government infrastructure. Toronto is definitively one of Canada's treasures.

I wouldn't say Canada is for assimilation, but rather integration. One does not have to lose their own culture in order to adopt a new one, because culture is knowledge, and is learned. Assimilation sadly happens amongst Canadians born to foreign parents, but it's not the government's job to prevent this.

Anyway, choosing another language does not mean opting for cultural diversity. They just agreed on the majority language of the region. I wouldn't blame Québec for this one... just Trudeau.

Trudeau played hand in hand with Quebec linguistic ideologies.

In Quebec linguistic culture diversity rules, just check out the 'French Language Charter'.

Québec was French-speaking before Trudeau became PM, so this is irrelevant. The Québec government decided to agree on the French language, having no relation to Trudeau. The Québec Law 101 is just as discriminating as British Colombia's provincial language law: signs have to be first and in largest print in the dominant regional domestic language, and other languages may follow in equally sized or in smaller print.

If I repeat myself in larger letters, and maybe draw pictures, will you be able to understand? The priority screening for a judge ought to be legal knowledge and judgment. Is that too complex for you? Do I need to repeat it? In French maybe? Only a tiny, miniscule percentage of cases in Ontario will be heard in French. It is therefore absurd to screen all judges on the basis of fluency in French.

Almost all older Ontarian judges outside the NRC don't speak a word of French, and even within the NRC I think some are still monolingual anglophones. That is why if an Ontarian gets a speeding ticket, they just have to request a court hearing outside business hours, then it will never happen, so the ticket will eventually be forgotten and no ticket will be charged or heard in court. If all Ontarian judges are bilingual, Ontarians will not get away with this as easily.

Everyone becoming qualified as a judge in Ontario are bilingual before they become a judge because it's required. The province can hire qualified judges, bilingual or not. Applicants having completed their qualifications in another province may not be bilingual. Bilingualism is not even an issue, because Ontario hires 100% of its applicants, most of them are already bilingual.

Ignoring these details and responding to your comment, the priority for screening is that the employee can do the job, but bilingualism is also prefered/required. Just because they require bilingualism does not mean they will lower their other standards. They still get qualified bilingual applicants, so shortening the candidate sample due to an extra requirement for the job does not lower the performance of the Canadian government(s).

[Leafless]

Québec didn't care about language issues outside of its own province. Québec wanted to seperate, and Trudeau wanted to convince Québec otherwise (with bribes and so forth and so on). No country would ever declare itself bicultural, no one would take a "bicultural" country seriously. Canada never had "biculturalsim" because there were always many cultures, even within the two spoken languages, so biculturalism never would have been accurate.

Biculturalism was originally proposed but multiculturalism was implemented along with discriminatory social engineering, actually paid for by English speaking Canadians themselves.

It was Quebec who benefited the most while other cultures were ignored: "The Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism was established in 1963 in response to increasing tension between Quebec and the rest of Canada. The work of the B&B Commission was guided by four key assumptions that were, for the most part, displaced from Canadian politics before being fully developed, leaving a legacy of uncertainty. For the Commission, “equal partnership” was the descriptor of what Francophone-Anglophone relations should be; “biculturalism” was key to recognizing that Francophone Quebecers constitute a society with a full set of institutions; a commitment to social, political and administrative innovations would lead toward societal partnership; and the development of conditions for participation in creating a common framework for societal action was as important as individual rights."

http://www.isuma.net/v02n02/oliver/oliver_e.shtml

I wish Quebec would do what you say and SEPARATE.

Biculturalism did not properly reflect the cultural diversity of any single province! It seems two you that Eastern Canada was of two cultures, whereas both Lower and Upper Canada had many European nationalities and people from other continents living in Eastern Canada, so even without the West, biculturalism would be very inaccurate.

We ALL know it's multiculturalism today but bicuturalism or multiculturalism worked the same way for Quebec by providing them with undemocratic, discriminatory, advanced cultural support while ignoring other cultures of Canada.

Québec was French-speaking before Trudeau became PM, so this is irrelevant. The Québec government decided to agree on the French language, having no relation to Trudeau. The Québec Law 101 is just as discriminating as British Colombia's provincial language law: signs have to be first and in largest print in the dominant regional domestic language, and other languages may follow in equally sized or in smaller print.

Please post the B.C. language law you are referring to.

There is an issue in Richmond B.C. concerning an abundance of Chinese signs and this could be compared to the illegal immigrant issue in the U.S. where a minority wants to establish Spanish as a working language, which is driving their federal government to make English the 'official language' of the U.S.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2004/12/09/...igns041209.html

IMO, it is only a matter of time before Canada will be forced to make English, the one and only, 'official language' of Canada.

[guyser]

If I repeat myself in larger letters, and maybe draw pictures, will you be able to understand? The priority screening for a judge ought to be legal knowledge and judgment. Is that too complex for you? Do I need to repeat it? In French maybe? Only a tiny, miniscule percentage of cases in Ontario will be heard in French. It is therefore absurd to screen all judges on the basis of fluency in French.

Kapitan has the answer to this. I could say it no better.

[Kapitän Rotbart]

Québec didn't care about language issues outside of its own province. Québec wanted to seperate, and Trudeau wanted to convince Québec otherwise (with bribes and so forth and so on). No country would ever declare itself bicultural, no one would take a "bicultural" country seriously. Canada never had "biculturalsim" because there were always many cultures, even within the two spoken languages, so biculturalism never would have been accurate.

Biculturalism was originally proposed but multiculturalism was implemented along with discriminatory social engineering, actually paid for by English speaking Canadians themselves.

It was Quebec who benefited the most while other cultures were ignored: "The Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism was established in 1963 in response to increasing tension between Quebec and the rest of Canada. The work of the B&B Commission was guided by four key assumptions that were, for the most part, displaced from Canadian politics before being fully developed, leaving a legacy of uncertainty. For the Commission, “equal partnership” was the descriptor of what Francophone-Anglophone relations should be; “biculturalism” was key to recognizing that Francophone Quebecers constitute a society with a full set of institutions; a commitment to social, political and administrative innovations would lead toward societal partnership; and the development of conditions for participation in creating a common framework for societal action was as important as individual rights."

http://www.isuma.net/v02n02/oliver/oliver_e.shtml

I wish Quebec would do what you say and SEPARATE.

Yeah, Biculturalism may have been proposed, but I still don't see the need for declaring anything about national culture. I am against government intervention in terms of culture (I'm mostly against the Canadian government funding Canadian artists and against the Can-Con law, because if Canadians are not naturally inclined to listening to Canadian music, we shouldn't bother having it at all considering what it's costing to the taxpayers). By the way, your reference mentions many Canadians from accross the nation did not think "biculturalism" represented Canada, not only the Westerners.

I wish Ontario would seperate from Canada. You can keep wishing, but it's not gonna happen any time soon considering the current political infrastructure - it has become virtually impossible for Québec to seperate.

Biculturalism did not properly reflect the cultural diversity of any single province! It seems two you that Eastern Canada was of two cultures, whereas both Lower and Upper Canada had many European nationalities and people from other continents living in Eastern Canada, so even without the West, biculturalism would be very inaccurate.

We ALL know it's multiculturalism today but bicuturalism or multiculturalism worked the same way for Quebec by providing them with undemocratic, discriminatory, advanced cultural support while ignoring other cultures of Canada.

A country declaring itself multicultural does not mean anything to me other than government propaganda. This could not have any real effect on the demand for bilingualism. If it could have any effect at all, it would be to promote tolerance, which you seem to lack. Canada never particularly ignored its minorities, regardless of background or language. However, there was no interest in adding more languages to the list of official languages.

Québec was French-speaking before Trudeau became PM, so this is irrelevant. The Québec government decided to agree on the French language, having no relation to Trudeau. The Québec Law 101 is just as discriminating as British Colombia's provincial language law: signs have to be first and in largest print in the dominant regional domestic language, and other languages may follow in equally sized or in smaller print.

Please post the B.C. language law you are referring to.

There is an issue in Richmond B.C. concerning an abundance of Chinese signs and this could be compared to the illegal immigrant issue in the U.S. where a minority wants to establish Spanish as a working language, which is driving their federal government to make English the 'official language' of the U.S.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2004/12/09/...igns041209.html

IMO, it is only a matter of time before Canada will be forced to make English, the one and only, 'official language' of Canada.

The American gov't will not make English the one and only official language. They voted on it, the yeh outnumbered the neh, yet it didn't pass. Didn't pass under Bush (one of the more conservative politicians around), not likely to pass under anyone.

I'd quote the language law I am referring to if I could find it. The link you posted to the CBC article is dated December 2004. I believe that "last resort" mentioned towards the end of the article to pass such a language law in BC was passed since then. I read it in the Ottawa Citizen some time ago, I'd quote the date had I remembered it. My point is that these laws are not discriminating... they're only in place in order to settle an agreement on a common regional language for certain purposes.

[Argus]

If I repeat myself in larger letters, and maybe draw pictures, will you be able to understand? The priority screening for a judge ought to be legal knowledge and judgment. Is that too complex for you? Do I need to repeat it? In French maybe? Only a tiny, miniscule percentage of cases in Ontario will be heard in French. It is therefore absurd to screen all judges on the basis of fluency in French.

Almost all older Ontarian judges outside the NRC don't speak a word of French, and even within the NRC I think some are still monolingual anglophones. That is why if an Ontarian gets a speeding ticket, they just have to request a court hearing outside business hours, then it will never happen, so the ticket will eventually be forgotten and no ticket will be charged or heard in court. If all Ontarian judges are bilingual, Ontarians will not get away with this as easily.

You don't change the screening requirement for judges in order to better handle traffic tickets. Only a world-class socialist would engage in that level of social engineering in order to deal with a minor problem.

Everyone becoming qualified as a judge in Ontario are bilingual before they become a judge because it's required.

Lovely English, that. Even lovely common sense. Judges have to be bilingual because - well, judges have to be bilingual. No thinking required there.

Ignoring these details and responding to your comment, the priority for screening is that the employee can do the job, but bilingualism is also prefered/required. Just because they require bilingualism does not mean they will lower their other standards.

Yes, in fact, it does. Clearly, absolutely, and without any doubt whatsoever. Requiring bilingualism screens out about 98% of applicants based on an issue unrelated to 98% of their work load. The requirement for judges should be legal knowledge, wisdom, good judgment - not bilingualism except in certain areas with high number of Frenchmen.

That you can't seem to realize this simply shows the depths of your zealotry on the subject of bilingualism. To you, nothing else matters. I might make a joke about the lifeguard who can't swim but who is bilingual, but you would actually hire one, and then be proud of yourself for doing so.

[Argus]

If I repeat myself in larger letters, and maybe draw pictures, will you be able to understand? The priority screening for a judge ought to be legal knowledge and judgment. Is that too complex for you? Do I need to repeat it? In French maybe? Only a tiny, miniscule percentage of cases in Ontario will be heard in French. It is therefore absurd to screen all judges on the basis of fluency in French.

Kapitan has the answer to this. I could say it no better.

What's sad is you're right. What's sadder is you seem proud of it.

[Kapitän Rotbart]

Yes, in fact, it does. Clearly, absolutely, and without any doubt whatsoever. Requiring bilingualism screens out about 98% of applicants based on an issue unrelated to 98% of their work load. The requirement for judges should be legal knowledge, wisdom, good judgment - not bilingualism except in certain areas with high number of Frenchmen.

That you can't seem to realize this simply shows the depths of your zealotry on the subject of bilingualism. To you, nothing else matters. I might make a joke about the lifeguard who can't swim but who is bilingual, but you would actually hire one, and then be proud of yourself for doing so.

Non-bilingual people need not to apply for jobs requiring bilingualism, so it screens out the few, senseless ones who apply despite not having the required skills.

People are not hired based on their performance, they are hired based on how good they can convince the employer that they are the best. I would not hire a "proclaimed professional" who has no skills beyond languages... unless the position was for translating. I would only hire qualified judges, lifeguards, etc. who have the skills beyond languages to practice their profession. However, many jobs in the NRC make use of bilingualism, so if I were the City of Ottawa and I were to hire Lifeguards, I would certainly first screen out those who do not have the capacity/knowledge to save a drowning person, but I would also prefer bilingual candidates. I would relocate employed monolingual candidates to the West end and to a few other areas if I cannot staff all positions with bilingual applicants because otherwise the City of Ottawa lifeguards need language skills to communicate with clients and to document certain things in both languages.

You seem to think that demanding bilingualism makes for an unqualified remaining sample of applicants, whereas only those who are qualified should be applying in the first place. The government manages to find qualified bilingual applicants, so there is no loss in demanding bilingualism.

[Leafless]

A country declaring itself multicultural does not mean anything to me other than government propaganda. This could not have any real effect on the demand for bilingualism.

You are against government intervention, yet you support government linguistic intervention (bilingualism).

This proves you are trolling and trying to inflame debates, as you fail to acknowledge language is a component of culture.

Please read this: ""Before 1867, British North America still remained, and was still regarded not as a cultural duality but, in the words of Georges Cartier, as 'a diversity of races.'... Language was only one of the many components that made up (this) curious cultural medley... National origin and national tradition - Irish, Scotch and English, as well as French - might be equally influential, and religion, so often sharpened by sectarian bitterness, was perhaps the most important of all. The Fathers of Confederation had to take account of these differences; but their great aim was not the perpetuation of cultural diversity but the establishment of a united nation."

http://andrewcoyne.com/2006/10/third-time-...agedy-again.php

By the way, your reference mentions many Canadians from accross the nation did not think "biculturalism" represented Canada, not only the Westerners.

So! What's the point?

My argument AGAIN, was whether you call it biculturalism or multiculturalism is irrelevant. Quebec was the culture that benefited the most culturally over all other cultures , in a official multicultural country.

I wish Ontario would seperate from Canada.

Why? Ontario and Alberta is Canada.

A country declaring itself multicultural does not mean anything to me other than government propaganda. This could not have any real effect on the demand for bilingualism.

Do you want to please supply proof, to support your ridiculous assertions.

My point is that these laws are not discriminating... they're only in place in order to settle an agreement on a common regional language for certain purposes.

No, you are wrong.

In Richmond B.C., that language by-law (if it exist), was proposed to prevent a minority language from being established, from overtaking the official majority language primarily English.

In Quebec it would be fair to argue if French is actually a majority language, since Quebec is a province in Canada and does not have the individual status of a country. Therefore to determine its status as a majority French language, it would have to compile the English language

Nevertheless Quebec is badly discriminating with its laws against the English language, as English is an official language of Canada and not a minority language.

[guyser]

Everyone becoming qualified as a judge in Ontario are bilingual before they become a judge because it's required.

Yes, in fact, it does. Clearly, absolutely, and without any doubt whatsoever. Requiring bilingualism screens out about 98% of applicants based on an issue unrelated to 98% of their work load. The requirement for judges should be legal knowledge, wisdom, good judgment - not bilingualism except in certain areas with high number of Frenchmen.

Clearly absolutely and without a doubt whatsoever our judges are learned men and women who have prepared to get ahead in life and knew that learning french would be beneficial. They have legal knowledge, wisdom , good judgement and know two languages. 98% of the ROC can see that plain as day.

That you can't seem to realize this simply shows the depths of your bigotry on the subject of bilingualism. To you, nothing else matters.

[Kapitän Rotbart]

You are against government intervention, yet you support government linguistic intervention (bilingualism).

This proves you are trolling and trying to inflame debates, as you fail to acknowledge language is a component of culture.

Please read this: ""Before 1867, British North America still remained, and was still regarded not as a cultural duality but, in the words of Georges Cartier, as 'a diversity of races.'... Language was only one of the many components that made up (this) curious cultural medley... National origin and national tradition - Irish, Scotch and English, as well as French - might be equally influential, and religion, so often sharpened by sectarian bitterness, was perhaps the most important of all. The Fathers of Confederation had to take account of these differences; but their great aim was not the perpetuation of cultural diversity but the establishment of a united nation."

http://andrewcoyne.com/2006/10/third-time-...agedy-again.php

Language and race have a many to many relation. Though language and culture have high correlation, a culture can be celebrated in any language, and a language can be spoken by people of many cultures. I will acknowledge that there is a correlation between language and culture, however one is not a component of the other. A good example are the Native Canadians out West... most have lost their indigenous languages and only speak English, yet they have not lost their culture.

I am against government intervening with culture, however I am not against government intervention in terms of languages. I quote myself, because perharps you didn't read it properly the first time:

I am against government intervention in terms of culture

So! What's the point?

My argument AGAIN, was whether you call it biculturalism or multiculturalism is irrelevant. Quebec was the culture that benefited the most culturally over all other cultures , in a official multicultural country.

No one benefited from official multiculturalism because it doesn't mean anything. It's just a self-declared title. One can consider themselves what they want, it doesn't mean that anything will result from this.

Why? Ontario and Alberta is Canada.

Ontario and Québec pretty much are Canada. Between the two provinces you get more than two thirds of Canada's population. Alberta may fuel Canada's economy, but it has much smaller importance politically (other than the fact that they're pretty good at voting conservative).

A country declaring itself multicultural does not mean anything to me other than government propaganda. This could not have any real effect on the demand for bilingualism.

Do you want to please supply proof, to support your ridiculous assertions.

The demand for bilingualism depends on the number of people asking for it, not for a government self-declared title.

No, you are wrong.

In Richmond B.C., that language by-law (if it exist), was proposed to prevent a minority language from being established, from overtaking the official majority language primarily English.

In Quebec it would be fair to argue if French is actually a majority language, since Quebec is a province in Canada and does not have the individual status of a country. Therefore to determine its status as a majority French language, it would have to compile the English language

Nevertheless Quebec is badly discriminating with its laws against the English language, as English is an official language of Canada and not a minority language.

No, you are wrong.

It would not be fair to argue if French is a majority language in Québec, because Québec is a region and French is the majority language of that region. The law 101 in Québec emphasizes the majority language of the region and sets all other languages as equal (second to the majority language of the region), being completely fine (that is, provided you do not disagree with BC's proposed language law).

BC's proposed language law is just as discriminating as QC's law 101. It doesn't matter if the chosen language is a majority/minority/foreign language, it is still emphasized, leaving all other languages second to it. Besides, Québec could not fully rule out the English language from their province because of federal policies (they still provide education in the English language and so forth and so on), whereas BC has the freedom to rule out any use of foreign languages if they choose to.

[Argus]

Everyone becoming qualified as a judge in Ontario are bilingual before they become a judge because it's required.

Yes, in fact, it does. Clearly, absolutely, and without any doubt whatsoever. Requiring bilingualism screens out about 98% of applicants based on an issue unrelated to 98% of their work load. The requirement for judges should be legal knowledge, wisdom, good judgment - not bilingualism except in certain areas with high number of Frenchmen.

Clearly absolutely and without a doubt whatsoever our judges are learned men and women who have prepared to get ahead in life and knew that learning french would be beneficial. They have legal knowledge, wisdom , good judgement and know two languages. 98% of the ROC can see that plain as day.

That you can't seem to realize this simply shows the depths of your bigotry on the subject of bilingualism. To you, nothing else matters.

Spew, little liberal, spew. I'm sure it makes you feel better. Don't hurt your mind by trying to think. Just spew, and then pat yourself on back because you're so much more enlightened than others. Wait! The herd is moving off! Better run along now or you'll get left behind!

[Argus]

Yes, in fact, it does. Clearly, absolutely, and without any doubt whatsoever. Requiring bilingualism screens out about 98% of applicants based on an issue unrelated to 98% of their work load. The requirement for judges should be legal knowledge, wisdom, good judgment - not bilingualism except in certain areas with high number of Frenchmen.

That you can't seem to realize this simply shows the depths of your zealotry on the subject of bilingualism. To you, nothing else matters. I might make a joke about the lifeguard who can't swim but who is bilingual, but you would actually hire one, and then be proud of yourself for doing so.

Non-bilingual people need not to apply for jobs requiring bilingualism, so it screens out the few, senseless ones who apply despite not having the required skills.

Bilingualism is not a skill. Any dullard can be bilingual (and many are) provided they grow up with both languages. Some of the dumbest, most unsophisticated people in the world can speak multiple languages. That's not to say all bilingual people are idiots. But nor are they any more likely to be better at say, law, or management, or swimming than a unilingual person

I would only hire qualified judges, lifeguards, etc. who have the skills beyond languages to practice their profession.

Only a minuscule percentage of lawyers will be bilingual. And as that second language knowledge is completely unrelated to their skill as lawyers, the odds say about 98% or higher of all lawyers would be screened out of a job as judge. Qualified? What does "qualified" mean to you? In theory, the greatest minds, the ones who stand head and shoulders from the rest, acknowledged by their colleagues as legal scholars and geniuses, ought to be the ones we make into judges.

But you would screen almost all of them out, and instead select from among that tiny cadre who are bilingual. Even though almost none of their work will involve Francophones.

Qualified? There are surgeons, and then there are great surgeons. You would only select bilingual ones, ignoring the great ones in favour of those who are bilingual - even though their patients die more often, even though their patients are unconscious when the real work is done. That is the kind of language fascism that Quebec Francophones are so well-known for, the kind of ethnic arrogance which makes so many of us dream of the day they will, probably in an emotional snit over something, pack up and get out.

. The government manages to find qualified bilingual applicants, so there is no loss in demanding bilingualism.

In every group, there are a few who stand out. Those are the ones who should be hired and promoted. That does not happen because of bilingualism. You get people who are "qualified" mediocre people, for the most part, for all the really capable ones go elsewhere. I know a lot of managers as I deal with them on a daily basis. Many of them are ineffective in any kind of leadership capacity, indecisive, without charisma, without people skills, mocked by their employees and colleagues, causing rolling eyes with their idiocy and incompetence. In every one of their groups there are at least several people who stand out as being brighter, more knowledgeable, more skilled, easier to deal with, the go-to people. But alas, they're not bilingual. So they're not the manager, the hapless, mediocre guy who can pass the bilingual tests is. I have been involved in boards where the board members are practically banging their heads against the wall as they go over the written and oral answers candidates have given to questions - but there are never enough candidates for these jobs, because bilingualism screens out almost everyone. So despite the head banging, they just lower the bar and try - somehow - to force some through. Many long competitions, and I'm talking a full year, come out with a fraction of the number of people they had hoped for, forcing them to immediately turn around and run another one. Again, bilingualism screens out almost everyone, and what's left is often not terribly exciting. I'm going to have to interview candidates next week in a board. We've been waiting almost a year, and this pool too is far smaller than hoped, with, from the resumes I've seen, not very impressive results. Bilingualism again.

[guyser]

Spew, little liberal, spew. I'm sure it makes you feel better. Don't hurt your mind by trying to think. Just spew, and then pat yourself on back because you're so much more enlightened than others. Wait! The herd is moving off! Better run along now or you'll get left behind!

Must have touched a nerve since you resort to ad hominem attacks. But then again, you are known for that.

So which point set you off, the ridiculing of your stats...98% of this 98% of that...you know , the ones you pulled out of thin air? Oh my,someone commenting on your stats, wow, talk about turnaround.

A french speaking Judge , a french girlfriend of days gone by, any of those the reasons you so mock and ridicule , thinly veiled as it were, all the French in this country?

Ad hominem, yup , that is all you have. This would be more fun if you had something other than what you show.

But alas.....

[Argus]

Spew, little liberal, spew. I'm sure it makes you feel better. Don't hurt your mind by trying to think. Just spew, and then pat yourself on back because you're so much more enlightened than others. Wait! The herd is moving off! Better run along now or you'll get left behind!

Must have touched a nerve since you resort to ad hominem attacks. But then again, you are known for that.

So which point set you off, the ridiculing of your stats...98% of this 98% of that...you know , the ones you pulled out of thin air? Oh my,someone commenting on your stats, wow, talk about turnaround.

A french speaking Judge , a french girlfriend of days gone by, any of those the reasons you so mock and ridicule , thinly veiled as it were, all the French in this country?

Ad hominem, yup , that is all you have. This would be more fun if you had something other than what you show.

But alas.....

Congratulations! 0% content yet again!

Added touch: a whole post for nothing but to attack me, and including the laughable hypocrisy of complaining about my "ad hominums". Oh, and the eager "Ooo! Oo! So what did I say to get you angry!?" certainly reveals your er, young side.

[guyser]

Congratulations! 0% content yet again!

Added touch: a whole post for nothing but to attack me, and including the laughable hypocrisy of complaining about my "ad hominums". Oh, and the eager "Ooo! Oo! So what did I say to get you angry!?" certainly reveals your er, young side.

Amazing to see for such a prolific poster, your complete and utter lack of reading comprehension.

Umm, no attack there matey. Just asking questions.

But it does seem that you are angry , and you do attack when you start losing. Have a look at the "police" thread and realize it yourself. The other poster called you on it.

Young side...now that is funny. Sometimes, I must admit, you are humorous , not sure you mean to but you are.

Thanks for that though.

[Kapitän Rotbart]

Bilingualism is not a skill. Any dullard can be bilingual (and many are) provided they grow up with both languages. Some of the dumbest, most unsophisticated people in the world can speak multiple languages. That's not to say all bilingual people are idiots. But nor are they any more likely to be better at say, law, or management, or swimming than a unilingual person

Languages are a skill. Despite being raised in multiple languages, one still has to learn their first languages. Knowing them properly is a skill that one has to work towards in order to achieve.

I beg to differ on the second point (only marginally, but I still beg to differ). People fluent in more than one language before reaching puberty are proven to be more capable in not only languages, but in mathematics and logics (and analytical work). As for physical capacities, I will not argue that multiple languages will make someone a better swimmer. Either way, multiple languages may not directly contribute towards management, law or lifeguarding in itself, but employees representing an institution should be able to communicate fluently in the languages of the institution (bilingual for federal gov't, Neu-Braunschweig gov't, Ottawan municipal gov't including certain public pools and a few other cases).

Only a minuscule percentage of lawyers will be bilingual. And as that second language knowledge is completely unrelated to their skill as lawyers, the odds say about 98% or higher of all lawyers would be screened out of a job as judge. Qualified? What does "qualified" mean to you? In theory, the greatest minds, the ones who stand head and shoulders from the rest, acknowledged by their colleagues as legal scholars and geniuses, ought to be the ones we make into judges.

But you would screen almost all of them out, and instead select from among that tiny cadre who are bilingual. Even though almost none of their work will involve Francophones.

Qualified? There are surgeons, and then there are great surgeons. You would only select bilingual ones, ignoring the great ones in favour of those who are bilingual - even though their patients die more often, even though their patients are unconscious when the real work is done. That is the kind of language fascism that Quebec Francophones are so well-known for, the kind of ethnic arrogance which makes so many of us dream of the day they will, probably in an emotional snit over something, pack up and get out.

Not applicable because lawyers and doctors are self-employed. The government can contract their research, so the government does not actually need doctors nor lawyers as "government employees". They can be contracted, and therefore bilingualism would not be an issue.

In every group, there are a few who stand out. Those are the ones who should be hired and promoted. That does not happen because of bilingualism. You get people who are "qualified" mediocre people, for the most part, for all the really capable ones go elsewhere. I know a lot of managers as I deal with them on a daily basis. Many of them are ineffective in any kind of leadership capacity, indecisive, without charisma, without people skills, mocked by their employees and colleagues, causing rolling eyes with their idiocy and incompetence. In every one of their groups there are at least several people who stand out as being brighter, more knowledgeable, more skilled, easier to deal with, the go-to people. But alas, they're not bilingual. So they're not the manager, the hapless, mediocre guy who can pass the bilingual tests is. I have been involved in boards where the board members are practically banging their heads against the wall as they go over the written and oral answers candidates have given to questions - but there are never enough candidates for these jobs, because bilingualism screens out almost everyone. So despite the head banging, they just lower the bar and try - somehow - to force some through. Many long competitions, and I'm talking a full year, come out with a fraction of the number of people they had hoped for, forcing them to immediately turn around and run another one. Again, bilingualism screens out almost everyone, and what's left is often not terribly exciting. I'm going to have to interview candidates next week in a board. We've been waiting almost a year, and this pool too is far smaller than hoped, with, from the resumes I've seen, not very impressive results. Bilingualism again.

There are great managers within the bilingual sample of applicants, so this shouldn't be an issue. If a monolingual manager is sooooooooooo good, then maybe the government can justify the costs of French language training, because monolingualism can always be cured.

Seriously though, no government has ever been "efficient". Tax money has been spoiled on the silliest things in every government. That's why I favor a smaller gov't, that as much work be outsourced as possible, and then the remaining government employees be bilingual in order to properly represent the federal gov't.

[Leafless]

Language and race have a many to many relation. Though language and culture have high correlation, a culture can be celebrated in any language, and a language can be spoken by people of many cultures.

Great, you have finally admitted language is a component of culture.

No one benefited from official multiculturalism because it doesn't mean anything. It's just a self-declared title. One can consider themselves what they want, it doesn't mean that anything will result from this.

I don't know how you possibly can say that when sections of the discriminatory Charter are specifically devoted to Quebec.

Let me put it this way, if it was not for multiculturalism, you would NOT have a Charter.

The main function of the Charter is to FORCEFULLY impress Quebec ideologies and culture on the rest of Canada.

No, you are wrong.

It would not be fair to argue if French is a majority language in Québec, because Québec is a region and French is the majority language of that region. The law 101 in Québec emphasizes the majority language of the region and sets all other languages as equal (second to the majority language of the region), being completely fine (that is, provided you do not disagree with BC's proposed language law).

You still do not understand in Richmond B.C. you have a foreign minority language (Chinese) trying to establish precedence over the official language English.

Region means nothing as far as discrimination is concerned. Quebec is discriminating against the official language of Canada, English, which has Charter protection.

How would you like all other provinces in Canada to develop their own language Charter, to keep those provinces English, as part of their culture? This would remove the danger of French or any other language from forming any kind of precedence within majority English speaking provinces.

[Kapitän Rotbart]

Language and race have a many to many relation. Though language and culture have high correlation, a culture can be celebrated in any language, and a language can be spoken by people of many cultures.

Great, you have finally admitted language is a component of culture.

I did not "admit" that one is a component of the other. I said there's a many to many relation, saying one is not bound by the other. In other words, you do not lose your culture if you ad to your list of spoken languages, and you do not have to be of a certain background in order to learn a certain language.

I don't know how you possibly can say that when sections of the discriminatory Charter are specifically devoted to Quebec.

Let me put it this way, if it was not for multiculturalism, you would NOT have a Charter.

The main function of the Charter is to FORCEFULLY impress Quebec ideologies and culture on the rest of Canada.

There would be no charter if it weren't for multiculturalism? If it weren't for diversity, we wouldn't have any rights? I doubt it. Can you quote these sections of the Charter? As I said, I skimmed through the Québec charter of rights and found hardly any mention of language (just that one is to not be discriminated based on a bunch of things including language and that one has a right to an interpreter in court if they cannot speak the judge's language(s) ), none that suggested language supremacy or any of the likes.

If you can find any discriminating parts of Québec's or Canada's charter, please quote.

No, you are wrong.

It would not be fair to argue if French is a majority language in Québec, because Québec is a region and French is the majority language of that region. The law 101 in Québec emphasizes the majority language of the region and sets all other languages as equal (second to the majority language of the region), being completely fine (that is, provided you do not disagree with BC's proposed language law).

You still do not understand in Richmond B.C. you have a foreign minority language (Chinese) trying to establish precedence over the official language English.

Region means nothing as far as discrimination is concerned. Quebec is discriminating against the official language of Canada, English, which has Charter protection.

How would you like all other provinces in Canada to develop their own language Charter, to keep those provinces English, as part of their culture? This would remove the danger of French or any other language from forming any kind of precedence within majority English speaking provinces.

In BC, the foreign language is not trying to gain status; people are simply agreeing on using it. This does not change the language used within the provincial government.

Québec is using one of the two official languages, and as long as a provincial government agrees on a given official language, there is no problem. Thanks to the charter, Québec is forced to subsidize public schools using the English language as an academic language of instruction and a few other things in English, so the Charter of Rights is preventing Québec from completely eliminating the English language from within its parameters.

[Leafless]

If you can find any discriminating parts of Québec's or Canada's charter, please quote.

The federal Charter discriminates against majority English speaking Canadians by providing special attention to Quebec's French 'collective rights' i.e. 'official languages' and entrenching them into the Canadian constitution, while ignoring English speaking Canadian collective rights, that could include, the notion, this might not be such a good idea to entrench these minority French rights. This equates to the failure by the federal government to implement a national referendum to address this all important concern.

Quebec never signed the the new Canadian Constitution and to impress its use of Bill-101 or otherwise called the French Language Charter, has used the 'notwithstanding clause' to prevent Quebec from honouring its commitment to the new Canadian Constitution.

This is outright discriminating against the people of Canada and the other official language of Canada and again illustrates the lack of federal leadership to force Quebec to honour Charter requirements.

In BC, the foreign language is not trying to gain status; people are simply agreeing on using it. This does not change the language used within the provincial government.

This will be my last post trying to form any kind of significant debate with you as you are an obvious troll.

You have been reported.

[Argus]

Congratulations! 0% content yet again!

Added touch: a whole post for nothing but to attack me, and including the laughable hypocrisy of complaining about my "ad hominums". Oh, and the eager "Ooo! Oo! So what did I say to get you angry!?" certainly reveals your er, young side.

Amazing to see for such a prolific poster, your complete and utter lack of reading comprehension.

I read quite well. Perhaps you simply have nothing to say I consider worth reading.

Umm, no attack there matey. Just asking questions.

Don't worry. No one worries about your lack of honesty.

But it does seem that you are angry , and you do attack when you start losing. Have a look at the "police" thread and realize it yourself. The other poster called you on it.

I don't recall "losing" anything, here or anywhere else. Here I am engaged with a French language fascist who seems to feel that it is perfectly acceptable to have ethnic cleansing in Quebec while requiring all federal workers to speak French. The only one dumb enough to believe I might be "losing" that argument would be uh, well...

Young side...now that is funny.

I mean juvenile but I guess like all other arguments with more than one syllable words that flew right over your head.

[guyser]

Man what is your fascination with me ? Let it go, your anger gets the better of you daily.

[Kapitän Rotbart]

If you can find any discriminating parts of Québec's or Canada's charter, please quote.

The federal Charter discriminates against majority English speaking Canadians by providing special attention to Quebec's French 'collective rights' i.e. 'official languages' and entrenching them into the Canadian constitution, while ignoring English speaking Canadian collective rights, that could include, the notion, this might not be such a good idea to entrench these minority French rights. This equates to the failure by the federal government to implement a national referendum to address this all important concern.

Quebec never signed the the new Canadian Constitution and to impress its use of Bill-101 or otherwise called the French Language Charter, has used the 'notwithstanding clause' to prevent Quebec from honouring its commitment to the new Canadian Constitution.

This is outright discriminating against the people of Canada and the other official language of Canada and again illustrates the lack of federal leadership to force Quebec to honour Charter requirements.

Yeah well... why did no other province choose to use the notwithstanding clause? Adding a language does not subtract from another. You seem to be convinced that it's French OR English. I say it's French AND English. Just because someone else can be served in their preferred domestic language does not mean that you can't.

In BC, the foreign language is not trying to gain status; people are simply agreeing on using it. This does not change the language used within the provincial government.

This will be my last post trying to form any kind of significant debate with you as you are an obvious troll.

You have been reported.

Shucks, I've been reported for being in disagreement with Leafless... the language fairness police might come after me! Thanks for the laugh.

[Leafless]

Yeah well... why did no other province choose to use the notwithstanding clause?

Simply because they CAN NOT. All other Canadian provinces signed the new constitution and ALL PROVINCES BUT QUEBEC LEGALLY ABIDE BY THE CONDITONS OUTLINED IN THE CHARTER, but got screwed big time because the federal government to this day as not forced Quebec to back off with the discriminatory Bill-101 otherwise known as the French Language Charter. This is what I say, only a CIVIL WAR or revolution will return Canada back to where laws are laws and all Canadians are protected by those laws and not laughed at.

Remember it was only Quebec the only province in Canada that refused to sign the new constitution but our dumb federal government included Quebec regardless (huge mistake) and gave them the same benefits of all other provinces, who did sign the constitution. (What's the reward for dumb English speaking provinces even being part of this corrupt Charter?) Quebec turns around and uses the notwithstanding clause to impose unconstitutional, undemocratic French language laws that discriminate against the English language and spirit of Canadian nationalism.

Adding a language does not subtract from another.

It certainly does, even French. When I go over to Gatineau, Quebec especially in the Hull sector clerks at stores even like even Walmarts, some clerks pretend they do not understand English and promptly walk away when questioned about a product. Cashiers as soon as they find out your English speaking put their heads down and do not look at you or say anything.

This creates breeding grounds for other levels of discrimination. Do you actually suppose I would walk into a store that has signs posted in only Arabic for instance, my answer to that, stuff your store.

You seem to be convinced that it's French OR English. I say it's French AND English. Just because someone else can be served in their preferred domestic language does not mean that you can't.

You know damn well minority languages who operate sections of a city in minority languages are not doing it for the benefit of the majority but to capitalize with their own kind and gain recognition in the form of a power grab, by isolating their minority away from the majority English. High potential for discrimination again. The reverse kind though, the type that their are not any laws for--reverse discrimination from a minority.

Shucks, I've been reported for being in disagreement with Leafless... the language fairness police might come after me! Thanks for the laugh.

No, there is more to it than that why you were reported, but obviously you are still here and I must say, I am disappointed with the management of this site who are unable to distinguish the characteristics of a troll.

BTW- The only language police in Canada are only in the SINGLE province that incorporates a Nazi type language policy, being Quebec. LOL

[guyser]

It certainly does, even French. When I go over to Gatineau, Quebec especially in the Hull sector clerks at stores even like even Walmarts, some clerks pretend they do not understand English and promptly walk away when questioned about a product. Cashiers as soon as they find out your English speaking put their heads down and do not look at you or say anything.

Stop giving them your money. Really simple.

This creates breeding grounds for other levels of discrimination. Do you actually suppose I would walk into a store that has signs posted in only Arabic for instance, my answer to that, stuff your store.

It does? How?

You know damn well minority languages who operate sections of a city in minority languages are not doing it for the benefit of the majority but to capitalize with their own kind and gain recognition in the form of a power grab, by isolating their minority away from the majority English. High potential for discrimination again. The reverse kind though, the type that their are not any laws for--reverse discrimination from a minority.

Discrimination is discrimination. Reverse discrimination is an oxy moron.

Minority language speakers use it because it is their first tongue . No discrimination at all. Your sense of outrage seems misplaced.

No, there is more to it than that why you were reported, but obviously you are still here and I must say, I am disappointed with the management of this site who are unable to distinguish the characteristics of a troll.

That comes as no suprise you feel that way. But I have been following this discussion and I cannot see any reason for anyone (well save for one I suppose) to report Rotbart . Seems pretty childish doesnt it?

I dont get your rants about the Charter either. It seems 28 or 29 Million people dont have a problem with it, but then again I havent asked them all so maybe I am off.