This man was smart, it's the judge was dumb. The judge knows the law, he did not have to dismiss this one, he did because he wanted. Aside from EN and FR, other languages are the responsibility of the criminal. I'm sure he was offered to call someone and the judge knew this. Total BS.
Mississauga drunk-driving case dropped after man not given Punjabi interpreter
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
Richmond I meant:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmond,_British_Columbia
50% isn't a majority, so I stand corrected. Just wait another year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmond,_British_Columbia#Demographics
54.6%. No more waiting needed.
The judge might have had no choice in the matter. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Article 14, states:
'A party or witness in any proceedings who does not understand or speak the language
in which the proceedings are conducted or who is deaf has the right to the assistance of an
interpreter.'in which the proceedings are conducted or who is deaf has the right to the assistance of an
But even with that, completely dismissing the case seems excessive. Two wrongs don't make a right. Why not still go ahead and charge him but then allow him to sue the officer?
Then presumably officers would just not touch anyone with weak English.
The wiki numbers are wrong.
Here is the latest from the city it self
http://www.richmond.ca/__shared/assets/2006_Ethnicity20987.pdf
You'll notice, Gerry, the guy got back on the right track in a good mood w/o any pig headed, arrogant comments.
The "guy" did what he always does. Spouts bullshyte and then backs down when caught as if it was no big deal.
REALLY! Is a comment about the demographics of a place (which by the way are always changing) a big deal? The gist of his statement was correct, the location was off by about 10 miles.
Yes I am bigotted. I'm biggoted to stuff like this:
Richmond's Chinese-only signs stir up language controversy - British Columbia - CBC News
Who cares in what langauge someone puts a sign up? If you want to buy, buy. If you don't, don't.
But when we are talking about sharing a common language with emergency services, whether police, fire, paramedic, etc. a common language could be useful.
However, given how many Canadians don't know the official languages well and this problem will only grow over time due to demographic shift, we will need to think about how to regulate this in a cost-effective manner. That's common sense.
No shyte, eh.... Last time I wrote my Z endorsement, I had one trying to copy my responses to the multiple choice questions. Makes you wonder how many loose nuts really ARE behind a steering wheel here
I agree. Those imposts just passed the Indian Act and the Chinese Exclusion Act rather than adapt to a multinational land.
'...their conduct “fell below the standard of care reasonably expected of them in the circumstances,.."
Is everyone is an expert on the conduct of the police officers in this case? Obviously the judge should have referred to the judicial experts at Canadian Content before ruling on the legal conduct of the cops.
Is everyone is an expert on the conduct of the police officers in this case? Obviously the judge should have referred to the judicial experts at Canadian Content before ruling on the legal conduct of the cops.
We have 2 official languages. IMNSHO, anyone that moves here should be ensuring they know at least one of them. Preferably the one that is most prominent in the area they have chosen to live. That being said, It has nothing to do with whether or not there are a majority of Chinese in Burnaby or in Richmond.
The Chinese signs in Richmond have been there for well over 20 years. It is nothing new. I used to love going into Richmond to see all the different cultural foods. I know that there were some stores that were chinese only and they refused to speak english or translate. No biggie, I just didn't buy from those stores and anyone that I heard complain about it I told them to do just that. The store owner was the one that was losing out by limiting their customer base.
However, when someone becomes concerned, for any reason, with the cultural demographics of an area, I need to question why.
FYI, Nunavut has four official languages and many reserves also have alternative official languages of their own. For example, Kitigan Zibi's official language is Algonquin, plus it has its own language laws similar to Bill 101.
Canada comprises far more than just the 'two founding races.'
Yet demographics are relevant. For example, some public schools in Nunavut teach in Inuktitut, not English. Kinda hard to teach maths and science in English to kids wh obarely know English. Even the CBC has had to adapt to that reality in part due to the demographics. To say that we are the 'two founding races' and our languages are the official ones due to our having flexed our political muscle in the 1960's to impose our languages, and that now everyone shoudl adapt is ludicrous. The Chinese in Richmond pay their taxes like everyone else and they represent a major part of the local tax base. No taxation without representation I say. We French Canadians represent maybe 1% of Richmond's population and aren't even in third place, so why should we have more rights in Richmond than the Chinese do? Remember, the Chinese were in BC long before confederation. Sure my ancestors on my mother's side go back to New France. Fine. But Quebec and Ontario are no where near BC. Sure the courreurs des bois had gone there and they were french, but most intermarried with the indigenous population like many Chinese did by the way. But today Chinese has a far stronger foothold in Richmond than French, so who cares about the official languages imposed through various political shenanigans of the 1960's?
And to be clear, though I am perhaps among the most critical of official bilingualism, I'm a native French-speaker myself and am fluent in four languages including English and French. In fact, it just so happens that I just got interrupted by a phone call in Chinese just before typing this. Not only does my opposition to official bilingualism have nothing to do with racism on my part, but in fact it's motivated primarily on the basis of official bilingualism itself being ethnically and lingusitically prejudiced against other language communities.
Again, Canada is far more than just the country's English and French regions.
"2 founding races"...."races"... wow, you do enjoy showing your bigotry, don't you.
Those in Nanuvut that are not teaching their children, at least, English are doing those kids a disservice. Without knowing, at least, English they can never leave where they live now. They would NOT be able to compete anywhere else in the world.
As for the number of French, or Polish, or English, or any other ethnicity, that live in Richmond really has no bearing on CANADA'S 2 official languages.
Canada was not "founded" by the Chinese, or the First Nations, or any other "visible minority" you wish to put forward. The country of Canada was "founded" by an agreement between France and England. You obviously don't like that fact, but it is still a fact. From that original combining of Upper and Lower Canada, Canada has grown to include the existing 10 provinces and 3 territories.
My apologies. The phrase 'two founding races' comes from here:
Report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, Book I, General Introduction, Paragraph 21:
'We should point out here that the Commission will not examine the question of the Indians and the Eskimos. Our terms of reference contain no allusion to Canada's native populations. They speak of "two founding races," namely Canadians of British and French origin, and "other ethnic groups," but mention neither the Indians nor the Eskimos. Since it is obvious that these two groups do not form part of the "founding races," as the phrase is used in the terms of reference, it would logically be necessary to include them under the heading "other ethnic groups." Yet it is clear that the term "other ethnic groups" means those peoples of diverse origins who came to Canada during or after the founding of the Canadian state and that it does not include the first inhabitants of this country.'
Book I, Chapter 1, Paragraph 19:
'Still, as we have pointed out earlier, there is such a thing as a French culture and a British culture. Of course, the differences between them are not as great as they would be if either were compared to one of the many Asian or African cultures. In Canada, the Anglophones and the Francophones wear the same sort of clothing, live in the same sort of houses, and use the same tools. They are very similar in their social behaviour, belong to religions which are not exclusive, and share the same general knowledge. To a greater or lesser extent, they share a North American way of living. But at the same time the cultures of the two are clearly different in many important aspects, including modes of thought and even styles of life.'
You do realise how difficult English is to learn, don't you?
An OECD report from 2005 states:
'A comparative study by Seymour et al., undertaken in 2003 […], shows that after one year of instruction, English children show the lowest percentage of correct word reading on a scale in comparison to other European countries, with only 30-40% correct words compared to German, Greek and Finnish, with close to 100%. However, by around 12 years of age English children do catch up to their European peers, and these differences disappear. It has been recognised that English children apparently learn to read more slowly due to the nature of the inconsistent orthography. Educational attempts to address this slow acquisition include implementing early literacy programmes (such as the National Literacy Strategy in the United Kingdom) and starting reading instruction earlier, at 5/6 years of age, compared to 7/8 years in other countries.'
http://www.google.ca/url?url=http://www.oecd.org/edu/ceri/35562310.pdf&rct=j&frm=1&q=&esrc=s&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwiAjvCh66jOAhUGyyYKHXBSC-kQFggYMAE&sig2=q90WwjDmkdEtkuv8kiGPbg&usg=AFQjCNGU9mLUahx2VmnvL0-wF5cjQQGWww
A French study had shown that Esperanto is from five to ten times easier to learn than English. A French child could learn as much Esperanto in 150 hours of instruction than he could learn English in 1500!
So while we can be smug about thos Inuit parents doing their children a disservice by failing to learn a difficult language that we decided to impose on the world, how about we show some compassion and promote an easier language as our common second language. If you are unilingual yourself, I don't think you're in any position to lecture an Inuit about how to raise his child in English.
Canada as we know it today was founded by what was essentially an Anglo-French colusion in the 1960's. The one prior to that had been founded by the British on the Plains of Abraham. And the Canada before that had been founded by France.
However, it was difficult for indigenous people to contribute to th building of this country when we wre locking them up in residential schools. It was difficult for the Chinese to contribute when we were keeping them out through the Chinese Exclusion Act or impoverishing them through the Head Tax. It was difficult for the Germans to contribute when we abrogated their freedom to send their children to school in German after WWII and then erased all traces of history by even changing Berlin ON into Kitchener-Waterloo.
Yes, we are the 'founding races. We founded the residential schools. We wrote the Chinese Exclusion Act, the Head Tax, the Indian Act, and everything else. But it's hardly something to write home about.
I really don't give a rats a$$ where it comes from. The implication is multiple "races" which is a racist theme. We are all part of the "human race" with the only differences being "skin deep".
The fact still remains that "Canada" was "founded" by the French and English. This is a fact and should not be in dispute. The First Nations people did NOT have a hand in the founding of the country "Canada". They did have a roll in the growth of that country, but they did not have a roll in the initial formation. The same with the Chinese, and Sikhs, and every other ethnicity that came to this country to better themselves.
Again, learning "Esperanto" would be a waste of time. English and French are the 2 official languages of this country with English being the predominant. No matter which way you look at it, If any child living in Canada is NOT taught to speak English they are being done a disservice.
Maybe YOU are....I am not. I am a member of the "human race". I am a Canadian first. My ancestors, ethnically, are French and Ojibwe.
"I" did not found the residential schools are the Chinese Exclusion act. The Government of Canada did. As a citizen of Canada, I am responsible for what my government does and has done. This would include EVERY Canadian citizen REGARDLESS of their ethnic background.
So how is an INuit parent supposed to teach his child English when the parent himself does not know it? I can't wait for your answer on that one.
Now, as for 'the two founding races,' the notion of official bilingualism itself is premised on the belief in two founding races, consciously or otherwise. As a result, a rejection of the notion of two founding races naturally leads to a rejection of official bilingualism since one is premised on the other.
And again, to defend offical bilingualism at the exclusion of indigenous, sign, and other languages is essentially a tacit approval of the residential school system, the Chinese Exclusion Act, the abrogation of the freedom of German Canadias to send their children to school in German, discriminatory immigration policies in favour of the British, etc. because had it not been for these, large swaths of Canada would speak neither English nor French today. It's thanks to these policies that you can enjoy your unilingualism.
I am a member of the human race too, but again, I'm using official terminology. According to the B&B Commission, the two founding races are Canadians of British and French origin. I'm a Canadian of French origin, therefore according to the official definition of the COmmission, I'm a member of the two founding races in the same way as a blond-haired and blue-eyed German is an Aryan according to Nazi ideology. This does not mean I embrace the notion of two founding races or official bilingualism. I reject them. But according to the Commission's definition, it had included me whether I agree to it or not.
What I can say is that I reject my privileges that I have inherited from official bilingualism. Official bilingualism is premised also on the idea that members of the two founding races have a right to live unilingually in their own languages, a right that does not extend to indigenous, Deaf, or other Canadians. That's one reason I was attracted to Esperanto, as a symbol of the obligation on me to meet others at least part way in the communicative proccess rather than just expect everyone else to learn my languages.
In the end, it paid off. Esperanto coincidentally shares many gramamtical features that are similar to Chinese, which helped me to learn Chinese. That was not my primary motive for learning Esperanto, but it certainly was a big added bonus.
Though I had discovered that advanatage only by accident when I then needed to learn Chinese and happened to already know Esperanto.
But of course you woudl view me as a traitor to the cause by having learnt any unofficial language I suppose.
In the end, it paid off. Esperanto coincidentally shares many gramamtical features that are similar to Chinese, which helped me to learn Chinese. That was not my primary motive for learning Esperanto, but it certainly was a big added bonus.
Though I had discovered that advanatage only by accident when I then needed to learn Chinese and happened to already know Esperanto.
But of course you woudl view me as a traitor to the cause by having learnt any unofficial language I suppose.
Fu ck you are dense.
I reject "races", I do NOT reject the fact that this country was founded by the French and English with England being the primary as they won the damn war. Of course the Brits would favour Brits in immigration. Considering the time, this is a fu cking surprise to you?
Defending official bilingualism does NOT give tacit approval to sweet fu ck all. This is one Country. It is made up of peoples from all over the globe. In my opinion, we should have ONE official language, not two. English only. If people want to keep the language of their ethnicity, more power to them, BUT, we can NOT run a country this size by pandering to EVERY language spoken in the 9.985 million km² that this country covers. The very idea of even attempting to do that is asinine beyond the pale.
Once again, proving your ignorance.
English is used in Punjab's schools. Had a couple of friends from there and that's what they told me.