What? I hope you don't consider Catholics to be some superior race? Heck, it's neither a race nor superior, well, except before the law it is a superior religion I suppose.
Does Canada need a US-style Bill of Rights?
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
What? I hope you don't consider Catholics to be some superior race? Heck, it's neither a race nor superior, well, except before the law it is a superior religion I suppose.
The gov't hires people that don't know both offical languages? News to me, it's been a prerequisite for years.
The gov't offers most services in a multitude of languages Mach, hence things like the MNR's fishing and hunting reg's being printed in Cantonese and Mandarin, to the tune of 10 million.
Except the fact that the gov't would have to now pay for language lessons for people that don't know the local lingo, who are transferred.
And still get stat pay?
I'm happy to read that many of these languages continue to be offered in schools. However, there is no denying that if a federal government employee must know French in Vancouver, that a high school student in Vancouver, even if he has the chance to learn the local indigenous language, might still feel the pressure to go for French instead. By removing that obstacle, we'd also be removing the potential government-imposed consequence job-opportunity-wise of choosing that language over French since then in Vancouver English alone would be fine to work in government. The same would apply to federal government offices in Quebec.
Are you denying that government legislation affecting job opportunities also influences decisions done in schools? Letting the Free market decide is one thing. Having government impose it is another. So while some schools may teach these languages already, they'd likely be even more successful without the OLA.
Are you denying that government legislation affecting job opportunities also influences decisions done in schools? Letting the Free market decide is one thing. Having government impose it is another. So while some schools may teach these languages already, they'd likely be even more successful without the OLA.
Yes. At no time did I even think of lowering myself to get a gov't job.
You do realize that this flies in the face of your feelings on multiculturalism eh?
Nah. Let's suppose religion X was given a special privileged status in the constitution, then I'd be opposed to that status. Replace the X with any religion, and my answer would still be the same.
Now that does not mean I have any issue with the Catholic Faith per se, but rather with the special privilge it's given in the constitution.
Is it so hard to make that distinction in your mind?
Let's go back in the past a little. At one time we could own black slaves. No let's suppose someone stood up and said the law needs to be changed to free the slaves. Would you then say I hate whites because I want to oppose the unfair privilege they'd have in owning a black slave?
That's the issue here. I don't hate whites (heck, I am white), but am happy that we're abolished slavery. So even though I have Catholic family members, my opposition to legal privilege has nothing to do with their faith. Just like the issue with whites and slavery, it's just a matter of principle.
Seems reasonable to me.
And BTW, I agree with your opinion about the special treatment of the RCC. The richest faith on the planet, should pay for their own schools.
First of all not one government would support such a thing. Secondly we would need to open the
Constitution and no one wants to do that I tell you. Most people do not understand when the
constitution is opened we do not open it for one item and put it back on the shelf. Once opened
there would be a thousand requests and this item would be at the bottom of the list on the
"We ran out of Time line" No one and I mean no one wants to open the constitution and subject
ourselves to that kind of abuse for a decade or more.
The other problem I have is with those who want to get rid of more than one official language. I do not
speak French or anything else but English. We live a different world now and every language my grand
kids can learn will help them in life. Some countries have as many as four official languages Swiss
folks being one. There is nothing wrong with being multilingual. The problem comes about when we as
citizens decide to make political issues out of the languages we speak. So really it is a political problem
rather than a linguistic one. Why do we want to limit our linguistic understanding of the world, that is one
of the sad issues facing America. There are millions of United States Citizens and I single them out only
because they are supposed to be a super power. and many people know their army is in Afghanistan
but they have no clue as to where that is. The point I am making is not to be anti American, but if a nation
takes steps to isolate itself in the modern world, by knowing only one language they limit their capability
to communicate with the greater world at large.
I think we should embrace the linguistic arts and ensure our children know about others and understand
others on a equal playing field. If we did not need people as interpreters, we could truly make lasting
individual friendships around the world and that leads to a stable planet and a lot less bloodshed.
I agree it is easier to have one common language but today that is no longer realistic. Oh I am still learning
a bit of Gaelic and so far I can say Hello how are you and the other small statement is
Kiss my a** but other than that I have not grasped much but I am learning. See if we were to embrace the
language of a long standing near majority to accommodate the Scots, the Irish and so on we would be
speaking Gaelic, God lets not go there the words are too long.
Constitution and no one wants to do that I tell you. Most people do not understand when the
constitution is opened we do not open it for one item and put it back on the shelf. Once opened
there would be a thousand requests and this item would be at the bottom of the list on the
"We ran out of Time line" No one and I mean no one wants to open the constitution and subject
ourselves to that kind of abuse for a decade or more.
The other problem I have is with those who want to get rid of more than one official language. I do not
speak French or anything else but English. We live a different world now and every language my grand
kids can learn will help them in life. Some countries have as many as four official languages Swiss
folks being one. There is nothing wrong with being multilingual. The problem comes about when we as
citizens decide to make political issues out of the languages we speak. So really it is a political problem
rather than a linguistic one. Why do we want to limit our linguistic understanding of the world, that is one
of the sad issues facing America. There are millions of United States Citizens and I single them out only
because they are supposed to be a super power. and many people know their army is in Afghanistan
but they have no clue as to where that is. The point I am making is not to be anti American, but if a nation
takes steps to isolate itself in the modern world, by knowing only one language they limit their capability
to communicate with the greater world at large.
I think we should embrace the linguistic arts and ensure our children know about others and understand
others on a equal playing field. If we did not need people as interpreters, we could truly make lasting
individual friendships around the world and that leads to a stable planet and a lot less bloodshed.
I agree it is easier to have one common language but today that is no longer realistic. Oh I am still learning
a bit of Gaelic and so far I can say Hello how are you and the other small statement is
Kiss my a** but other than that I have not grasped much but I am learning. See if we were to embrace the
language of a long standing near majority to accommodate the Scots, the Irish and so on we would be
speaking Gaelic, God lets not go there the words are too long.
How so?
By removing all discriminatory laws, we're leaving it to all to decide for themselves what language to speak, what religion to follow, etc. while accepting the free-market consequences of their decisions. Looking at it that way, we could argue that this would be a policy of aculturalism (i.e. the government does not pass any law with regards to language, religion, etc.), thus leaving it up to the population.
So in a sense you are right, it doesn't go against multiculturalism but does not support it either. Instead, it leaves culture up to the free market.
I'd say that to be fair a government must either:
1. legally recognize all cultures, languages, religions, etc. in the country (what we could call multiculturalism), which could be very costly and unwieldy. This is what I'd call multiculturalism.
2. not recognize any culture, language, religion, etc. essentially staying out of the cultural realm and limiting itself to the simple administration of the people, adopting cultural norms unofficially strictly on an as-needed basis for pragmatic reasons, such as a local government office adopting a common administrative language for obvious practical reasons. This is what I'd call aculturalism, or at least relative aculturalism.
3. Adopting an official language that is a common second language to all. Not likely to happen any time soon. This is what we might call auxiliary uniculturalism (i.e. the use of a second language and culture that is no one's, or nearly no one's mother tongue or ethnic culture, but that is spoken by all as a common second language and culture, etc.)
Among those three options, the second seems to be the most fair and cost effecive and makes the most pracical sense at the moment.
The current option, which we might call Anglo-French Catholicism (i.e. the official recognition of particular ethnic languages and religions over others)is clearly unfair as it discriminates in favour of particular ethnolinguistic and religious groups.
So looking at the four options above, it would seem that a policy of aculturalism would find the right balance between fairness and cost-effectiveness. Multiculturalism (which we really only have in name in Canada anyway) is already unwieldy even in its current moderate form, mostly confined within the restrictions of moderate Anglo-French Catholicsm, would be even more unwieldy and impracticalbe if followed in its purest form (i.e. all languages, religions and cultures being equally official).
Multiculturalism, is forced, you just said you wanted a 'free market' on language and such.
They already have that.
Do you mean free market, or mob rule?
Yep, mob rule.
Yep.
It's not quite a requirement since it it were many government jobs could not even be filled. However, they do waste much money on language courses and promotions are certainly dependent on learning the language well, at least at the higher levels.
And that should stop in my opinion. If numbers warrant to be able to do it at low cost, then fine. But otherwise no. But was it really 10 million? My god, you hire someone to translate it, then you print off however many copies you need at no more cost than printing it in this or that language. Are you sure it was 10 million? Of course you can't count in the cost of the paper since had they taken it in English or French, then that 10 million would just have been tagged onto that. But anyway, details aside, if it really did cost 10 million all considered, then it should be up to the Chinese to learn the local lingo.
That's the whole point of a pragmatic policy. If they don't know the local lingo, don't transfer them there either. If they do (at their own expense of course), then great. And of course those who know Canada's major languages are more likely to get promotions for obvious practical reasons, but the government should not pay for that. They should learn it themselves on their own dime and thus be rewarded fairly accordingly.
Well, no, because why should you be paid more on a religious holiday than any other day? If there's an issue with that, then democratize the workplace with some kind of co-determination legislation so as to let the workers and management negotiate a fair deal among themselves.
Why should one religious holiday be given stat pay but not another? Will we do this for all religions holidays? On the one hand, there would be a point to that in the all or nothing principle, but then the nothing side will certainly cost less than the all side. Again, the debate between multiculturalism and aculturalism, both egalitarian systaes, albeit one more efficient than the other, vs. Anglo-French Catholicism, which is more efficient than multiculturalism, but more discriminatory than either of the two other options.
It may not be fair, however it comes from our history. And being that way, has made our country the destination of choice for countless immigrants from other cultures.
Are you saying that what has made us great is completely wrong-headed? That the very foundation of our country, which has made us such a desireable place to be, is misguided?
How would it be mob rule? People would still be expected to obey the law of course, but the free market, not government, would determine days off and language use. Has anyone ever died as a direct consequence of having to work Christmas day or, traveling to another part of Canada, couldn't understand the waiter at the restaurant?
Heck, this already happens, except that government spends tons of money trying to protect us from it. So seeing that it still happens in spite of all this costly legislation, then why not remove it?
So official bilingualism and the separate school system are what make our country great?
No, the people and our other laws regarding fairness are what make our country great. In relative terms, our laws are much better than those of many other countries. Removing these discriminatory laws would make our country even greater. But I can assure you that it's not our discriminatory policies that have made our country great. That's just silly.
I went into a McDonalds in Edmundston NB several years ago, and when I ordered, the clerk had to go get someone who spoke English. Had I realized that's what the clerk was doing, I would have spoken French. On the other hand, McDonalds has a fairly limited menu - is it that hard to figure out? For someone in Edmundston?
Clearly he hadn't used his head and just asked if you spoke his language, or heck, just point at the menu. However, clearly the Official Languages Act hadn't saved you in this case eh.
Well, if you remove all official languages, then, let's say, a Montagnais who know French could get a job in the Federal government just as easily as an English-speaking Montrealer who knows French, if the job is in Roberval and so the only concern really is that you know French for obvious pragmatic reasons. Under the current system, the Montrealer would have a clear advantage despite the fact English is barely useful if at all in that town.
Also, without the separate school system, the Jewish father could send his child to a Jewish school under the same terms and conditions as the Catholic father (i.e. either the government pays for both schools or neither, but not one at the expense of the other).
Is the concept of fair that difficult to understand?
All or nothing could also describe fair quite nicely.
Is it 'fair' that the people who founded this country have their traditions tossed in the garbage, because other immigrants want to come here and fundamentally change our nation?