http://www.cbc.ca/be...inese-1.3378013
Of course I reject Andreas Kargut and Harry Grey's arguments.
First, Harry Grey's appeal to Chinese not belonging to Canada's official languages applies only to Government administration and public education and not to the private sector.
Secondly, official bilingualism itself is a relic of the residential school era based on what the B&B Commission termed 'the two founding races' apart from 'the other ethnic groups' to the explicit exclusion of 'the Indians and the Eskimos' in its Book I, General Introduction, Paragraph 21.
Thirdly, his argument that Richmond isn't Beijing or Taiwan doesn't hold water as an argument for providing English translation when we consider that Richmond isn't England either.
The logic of Andreas Kargut's argument that Chinese-only meetings exclude him can just as easily be summed up as "A meeting held in language X excludes those who do not know language X."
That being said, I could agree with a law requiring a strata property to hold meetings in the language of its contracts unless the contracts specify otherwise.
I'm assuming these gentlemen had signed their contracts in English with their contracts never defining the strata property's language policy, and so the meetings that are not held in English should include English interpretation.
If the strata property council intended for the meetings to be held monolingually in Chinese, it should have provided Chinese contracts only or at least specify the property's language policy in the contract.
This has nothing to do with official bilingualism, Beijing, or Taiwan though, and everything to do with the contract.
We might also ask whether the law should explicitly require strata property contracts to to specify property council's linguistic policy.
Of course I reject Andreas Kargut and Harry Grey's arguments.
First, Harry Grey's appeal to Chinese not belonging to Canada's official languages applies only to Government administration and public education and not to the private sector.
Secondly, official bilingualism itself is a relic of the residential school era based on what the B&B Commission termed 'the two founding races' apart from 'the other ethnic groups' to the explicit exclusion of 'the Indians and the Eskimos' in its Book I, General Introduction, Paragraph 21.
Thirdly, his argument that Richmond isn't Beijing or Taiwan doesn't hold water as an argument for providing English translation when we consider that Richmond isn't England either.
The logic of Andreas Kargut's argument that Chinese-only meetings exclude him can just as easily be summed up as "A meeting held in language X excludes those who do not know language X."
That being said, I could agree with a law requiring a strata property to hold meetings in the language of its contracts unless the contracts specify otherwise.
I'm assuming these gentlemen had signed their contracts in English with their contracts never defining the strata property's language policy, and so the meetings that are not held in English should include English interpretation.
If the strata property council intended for the meetings to be held monolingually in Chinese, it should have provided Chinese contracts only or at least specify the property's language policy in the contract.
This has nothing to do with official bilingualism, Beijing, or Taiwan though, and everything to do with the contract.
We might also ask whether the law should explicitly require strata property contracts to to specify property council's linguistic policy.
