We’ve all wanted to go postal (all pun intended) at some time or another. The type of day where you regret even leaving your front door to face the day. The sort of day where you know that whatever you do, you just cannot make any headway nor win your cause in the least bit. We’ve all had those kinds of days whereby, ’ The Shirelles’ invented the song, “Mama Said” to describe them.
And so it was a normal, cool, crisp and sunny Northern Ontario morning last April whenever I left the house to mail a letter at the Post Office. I had not much to do that day; and figured I would take complete advantage of the time I had to run a few errands. My first step was the Post Office.
There was no lineup when I arrived and felt blessed that my luck was so far, so good. I was wrong though. As I approached the mid-age woman working behind the desk I greeted her and wished her a good morning and requested to purchase a stamp in the language of my choice, which happens to be English. She obliged by producing the stamp and not returning the greeting in English nor French. The remainder of our exchange during the few minutes had me requesting my service in English whereby her portion of the exchange was conducted in French.
Now, normally this situation wouldn’t be a problem for me as everyone knows I’m bilingual. But on this particular day, I couldn’t get over the fact that I showed absolutely no inclination at all as to being bilingual. Why wasn’t I served in English when clearly I greeted the worker in English upon the beginning of our exchange? Further, why didn’t the Postal Worker switch to English whenever I was communicating in said language? I could have switched to French but I decided not to. My idea in this decision had to do with the fact that I felt that the worker was obligated to provide me with the service in English simply because I was the customer. This would have been different if at any time she had informed me that she couldn’t speak English and would try to accommodate me by other means. One such solution she could have sought out would be to perhaps seek out the services of another Postal Worker to serve me if she didn’t speak English herself.
In any case, I didn’t complain. That is, I didn’t file a complaint at the Post Office. As an aside, I have come across instances like this a few dozen times during the course of business transactions with civil service workers throughout the years and even some in the private industry. And, after all was said and done, I never complained. I had simply grown accustomed to situations like the one above and there is an argument to be made that I had become somewhat conditioned by these scenarios over the years.
Until now…
Perhaps it’s my newfound sense of fairness and pride that has awakened within me during these past two years. Perhaps now that I’m a little longer in the tooth, I have decided that I no longer will take things lying down as it were.
I’m tired…
It’s one thing to learn a minority language and to enjoy the privileges of being able to read, write and speak in French. But for what purpose and intent? And to who’s benefit is it that I am bilingual? Myself or to those whom I communicate with who have French as a first language? I can honestly state that being bilingual hasn’t furthered my career options nor has it had the desired effect of garnishing career advancement opportunities for me in the job that I do have. Moreover, I get the feeling that being bilingual for many of us Anglophones simply equates to making it easier for the Francophones to not have to learn English in order to communicate with us – such as in daily merchant transactions.
Enough…
It was with all of these thoughts swirling within my consciousness that April day that I made the conscientious decision to file a complaint with Canada’s, ‘Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages’. Before doing so, however, I ensured that I had a valid complaint to begin with and checked out the ‘Filing a Complaint’ section, sub-section, ‘In what situations can I file a complaint’. After reviewing the information, I determined that I did in fact have a valid complaint and filed an online complaint the day of my Post Office visit and an initial response was forthcoming from a representative within a week of filing the complaint.
The representative advised me that in order to solve the dilemma of what had occurred an investigation would take place as to the incident itself. Having said that, keep in mind that my complaint was well documented and filed only after a few hours of the incident taking place. Everything that happened was written succinctly on the initial report!
So, after e-mail and playing telephone tag to which more than a half dozen e-mails and a half dozen telephone calls were sent between myself and the representative detailing what had occurred; I emphasized and re-emphasized that I wanted only one question answered – and that was the following:
Why, was I spoken to in French whenever I clearly communicated in English?
All of this to say that as month 3 was coming around the corner subsequent to the initial incident; I was informed that the investigation was completed and that the results would soon be forthcoming. I have a few questions as to this entire affair after having gone through this experience. One being why haven’t I been provided with a response yet after 3 months? Certainly this is a cut and paste situation?
Why?
Exactly what justifies the creation of an, “Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages” to begin with. As of 2011, there were 518 complaints that the office dealt with having to do with language issues. On October 16, 2012 a Globe and Mail article reported that,
“Almost half of the 518 complaints came from the area around Ottawa and adjacent Gatineau, Que., …” (http://www.theglobeandmail.
Are Canadian taxpayers being led to believe that 518 language-related complaints warrant a full-time staff being paid civil service wages to investigate this? I cannot help but comment that more work is done during an 8 hour shift by a half dozen or less call centre employees who themselves individually handle on average a little more than 100 calls a day. It seems as though by comparing stats, we’re not exactly getting a great bang for our buck. So, I would argue that what we have here is but another example of government incompetence; a type and kind of federal government language police make-work project that our taxes are paying for.
And I’ll say this much. We already have a set of language police in this country. We don’t require the services of another; let alone the foundational Office quebecois de la langue francaise.
Ask yourselves this much: Will it take over 3 months to solve your next computer or cell phone issue by someone making minimum wage? Probably not. So why would something so trivial take so long to conclude by someone being paid so much?
(Comments and opinions of Editorials, Letters to the Editor, and comments from readers are purely their own and don’t necessarily reflect those of the owners of this site, their staff, or sponsors.)
On the concept of a bus load of people from NEW BRUNSWICK, CANADA NOT knowing the common language of this country.
I find simply astounding is that there ARE in fact people born in, and having grown up in Canada who CANNOT speak the common language of the this country
The brainwashing done by the “French fact” in this country seems to have worked very well over the years.
@English Lassie RE: post on July 12, 2013 at 5:49 am
English lassie wrote, “@hftt
So according to your logic, I guess it only matters if a bus load of French need medical services @CCH.
God help us if a bus load of Hispanics get into an accident, just sayin… Maybe ALL the staff should learn the 200 languages spoken in Canada.Get over yourself.
“Ridiculous!!!!”
Bloody well said lassie 🙂
and yes,
English Lassie Re: your question on July 12, 2013 at 5:53 am
“I am of the understanding 2 Official Languages services were to be for Federal Government Services ONLY, so just what the he** is going on in our Country? ??”
— It WAS SUPPOSED TO BE — ONLY the federal government and the courts. And now, using the simple concept that it has “been this way for so long now” that it should spread as “it’s about time.”
As you can see in this article:
(Warning. This link may be depressing, but it clearly shows the CONSTANT PUSH from THEM to get MORE AND MORE)
It might soften the blow to watch this shot piece first and then look at the paper clipping 🙂
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=3kNcFyBofC4#t=18s
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-SHyEPHvWX14/Ud66BgVjzSI/AAAAAAAAAqI/QUfFkrJC2-g/w177-h588-no/City+workers+need+to+step+up+bilingual+service.jpg
To the KING OF RANTS…..
Edudyorlik
July 11, 2013 at 3:31 pm
“Yes, Respect, and TOLERANCE would be nice.”
Hungry for the Truth….
July 11, 2013 at 7:10 pm
I’m sorry that you perceive my DISAGREEMENT to your Radical,
Plagiaristic Antics as an attempt to show you disrespect and intolerance.
I could not have personally disrespected you or showed personal intolerance.As I do not know you. The only thing I know of you is the contents of your POSTS.
Edudyorlik
July 12, 2013 at 1:57 am
“To which I reply with,
Oh my. I wouldn’t flatter myself too much there HftT.”
Self flattery is not my style.
“My comment had nothing — AT ALL — to do with what you wrote whether you were agreeing OR disagreeing with me.”
No, I believe it expressed your wish for respect and tolerance.
And my reply noted that as a fellow CANADIAN I respect you
and show tolerance to your freedom of speech.
And explained to you my disappointment of your view
and attempted to offer you clarity, that my disagreement should
not be considered as disrespect or intolerance.
DO I HAVE TO AGREE WITH YOUR VIEW?
For you not to have to post. “Yes, Respect, and TOLERANCE would be nice.”
IT’S NOT PERSONAL.
Got to go now, my Sand box is waiting.
And It’s ALL INCLUSIVE EVEN QUEBEC! AND WHY NOT?
English Lassie
July 12, 2013 at 5:49 am
“@hftt
So according to your logic, I guess it only matters if a bus load of French need medical services @CCH.
God help us if a bus load of Hispanics get into an accident, just sayin…
Maybe ALL the staff should learn the 200 languages spoken in Canada. Get over your self.
Ridiculous!!!!”
I agree it may be ridiculous. But according to The Ontario Service Act and The Languages Act
Public Services are to offered in the two official languages.
Immigration Law require “New Canadians” to learn on of the two official languages.
Even the UN have 6 official languages. And they are a Multicultural Organization.
Having to deal with 100’s of other languages.
Got to go now, my Sand box is waiting!
@English Lassie
Federal services are to be provided in both official languages where numbers warrant. This fact is our constitutional rights as Canadians. Provinces and territories are free politically to mirror this constitutional right on a separate provincial basis as New Brunswick did I believe back in 1969 or a lesser version as is in place in Manitoba since 1985. Quebec has opted out of its bilingual policies once in place in favour of a unilingual provincial policy. Ontario enacted a regional system to address bilingual needs and provides french services in specific regions where the french speaking population meets or exceeds the 10% threshold. There are at this time I believe 25 specific regions that have met the criteria for provincial services in both official languages.
The on going debate centers around the constitutional wording of the federal law/right which reads to paraphrase, where numbers warrant. There are those that believe we have not gone far enough and those that believe we have ventured to far from the constitutional intention of the law/right. Hence our continuing debate and dissension over language in Canada.
I hope that I have shed a little light and answered at least some of your question. Regards, David
@English Lassie
Federal services are to be provided in both official languages where numbers warrant. This fact is our constitutional right as Canadians. Provinces and territories are free politically to mirror this constitutional right on a separate provincial basis as New Brunswick did I believe back in 1969 or a lesser version as is in place in Manitoba since 1985. Quebec has opted out of its bilingual policies once in place in favour of a unilingual provincial policy. Ontario enacted a regional system to address bilingual needs and provides french services in specific regions where the french speaking population meets or exceeds the 10% threshold. There are at this time I believe 25 specific regions that have met the criteria for provincial services in both official languages.
The on going debate centers around the constitutional wording of the federal law/right which reads to paraphrase, where numbers warrant. There are those that believe we have not gone far enough and those that believe we have ventured to far from the constitutional intention of the law/right. Hence our continuing debate and dissension over language in Canada.
I hope that I have shed a little light and answered at least some of your question. Regards, David
hungry for the truth you have not answered my questions that I directed to you at 741am.
Waiting patiently for your responses to those very valid Questions.
@David Oldham
July 12, 2013 at 12:38 am
@Hungry for the Truth
“I have long had a love for debate, HftT. It creates an opportunity for one to either solidify a viewpoint or gain insight into another perspective.”
I welcome a respectful and constructive debate that offers inclusive and equal dialogue.!
“However if you wish to merely come gunning than let me suggest that you load your choice of weapon first, sarcasm and misquotes will not gain you any ground. In other words, which cannot be misinterpreted, start your brain before putting your mouth in gear.”
Very well said David, one should always engage brain before mouth. I thought I had done so. But, maybe not. The only weapon I load as you say is my sense of objective interpretation. There is no intent to be sarcastic. In order to allow me to continue answering your questions, I think I need some clarification, if you have no objections?
“I did not call Richard illogical.
I did not say that Richard was a lunatic.
Nor did I say that Richard was arrogant, ignorant or disrespectful.
I have no idea whether Richard personally has a sense of entitlement, that you would have to ask of him.”
For the purpose of clarity allow me to include the comments in question.
@David Oldham
July 10, 2013 at 7:51 am
“While everyone has to interpret for themselves, our personal bias is indeed reflected in the result. I read and interpret that Rosie was merely suggesting the lunacy of Richard’s logic.”
“While we all enjoy the concept of having certain undeniable rights when “certain individuals mistake wants for rights they communicate a sense of entitlement. This results in stereotyping an entire group as arrogant and ignorant of the needs of others.”
In your above comments I read them to be your interpretation of the original post, in which you offer an interpretive conclusion of what Rosie’s suggestion was in your view, “merely suggesting the “lunacy of Richard’s logic.” Is this an accurate assertion?
Now again, with no malicious intent in an attempt to be smart or sarcastic.
Would it be an accurate deduction that the utilization of the term “lunacy” is characterized as lunatic or eccentricity? What is clear to me as a reader is they have inferences. When interpreted objectively, they lend themselves to an inferred, interpretative conclusions?
Where we find common grounds of agreement, is that the words “lunatic” or “illogical” never appeared as WORDS in your post.
When you write “certain individuals mistake wants for rights they communicate a sense of entitlement. “ Who am I to refer to if not individual Richard? It’s a pretty safe deduction that the “certain individuals” includes individual Richard in this context ?
On the comment “This results in stereotyping an entire group as arrogant and ignorant of the needs of others.” So, as to not leave it to my deductions and interpretive conclusions, who are
you referring to as “the arrogant and ignorant of the needs of others.” ? Who’s action is resulting in stereotyping in this context?
I hope that you’ll agree, that from a contextual point, we are still in the contexts of your interpretive conclusions of the subject “individual Richard”? Your interpretation of what meaning was intended in Rosie’s suggestion when she said Richard had demanded services in French and after all he speaks English are the subject matter? Is this an accurate assertion?
You did not close and post these comment under another context.? They should be interpreted as the flow of a ongoing thought?
I’ll be glad to answer your other questions. In order not to cause any further damage from my interpretive actions, I’ll require your interpretation. Because it is clear that we do not interpret, in the same light.
Got to go now, my Sand box is waiting!
@Highlander
July 12, 2013 at 2:29 pm
“hungry for the truth you have not answered my questions that I directed to you at 741am.
Waiting patiently for your responses to those very valid Questions.”
@Highlander
Just got a little tied up. Hope to have time this evening.
Looking forward to it….Be patient….I welcome the questions!
Just time constraints…. It’s not avoidance.
OMG WHAT A RANT ,HUNGRY YOU STILL DID NOT ANSWER MY VALID QUESTIONS ,STILL.WAITING FOR YOUR ENLIGHTENED VIEW POINT.
COME TO MY SANDBOX ANSWER MY VERY VALID QUESTIONS!
@Highlander
I apologize for my tardiness….Had to clean my Sand box
In response ….
Highlander, your questions are valid indeed. But if you wish to engage me in a statistical debate I’ve stated before I will not indulge you.
But, I will say this for the integrity of the discussion. I agree that there is unfairness with the present structure of the laws to equate fairness and equality.
That said, we can debate numbers or solutions. What I’ve found having gone trough many of this topic’s related archived posts, the debate remains consistently the same.
The only point of consistent agreement that remains unequivocally undisputed, is that the laws are unfair, nonequivalent and discriminatory.
So we have an agreement that we can build on. Now, is it important to decide to what statistical % they are unfair? Red is Red, Green is Green and Broken is Broken.
Could taking another three years to establish to what degree they are broken and offer up Links,Graphs and numbers fix them? At the end of the day everyone turns their computers off and they are still BROKEN.
If I’ve understood correctly the perceived Discrimination argued by the defenders is brought on by the unrealistic disproportionate requirements of two Laws One of which is the Ontario Service Act and the other is The Languages Act.?
Having a Law rescinded or modified that has been entrenched into the Constitution would require amending the Constitution. From where I sit it appears to be a very LONG, and arduous not to mention challenging road.
Maybe the approach needs redirection or refocus to also explore other CAUSES of the deprivation?
Is the HIRING POLICY that has been instituted depriving access to employment from the otherwise Qualified Nursing Staff? Are the Hospitals Justifying and Defending their Actions on The Languages Acts?
The Languages Laws in themselves do not discriminate. It is the APPLICATION of a LAW that becomes measurable on it’s Fairness, accessibility and discrimination.
The Hospitals did not APPLY the LANGUAGES LAWS. Although, on a voluntary basses, they responded to meet their requirements by forming a POLICY. In the same way they where required to meet the Ontario Building Code and the Ontario Accessibility Act requirements during construction. They are the RESPONDERS.
The Hospital applied THE Hiring POLICY to respond to the requirements of the Languages laws. Is it not the POLICY that requires Bilingual Staff and not the Languages Act.?
The Hospitals are then deemed the APPLYER of the HIRING POLICY that stipulates That all staff will be hired Bilingual. The Languages Act does not dictate to what % of bilingual staff will be required. Is it not the Hospitals Policy that dictates?.
Is it not the formulation of a POLICY that they have instituted and APPLIED then becomes measurable on it’s FAIRNESS and accessibility not The languages Act?
The debate on languages has been going on for a while and within it, has not found any remedy to bring fairness to the affected Victims of discrimination from a POLICY that limits their Professional advancement and development.
Maybe it’s time for a change in the discussions? A paradigm shift?
In closing I apologized for the RANT. Sometimes it takes allot of words to make a point!
A wise man once said the definition of Insanity is repeating
the same thing over and over again and expecting a different OUTCOME!
What is the outcome being sought?
Got to go now, my Sand box is waiting!
@Highlander
I can’t play in your Sand box today. I’m going to
play in the big Sand box with my compatriots
in Quebec.
Maybe another day….. only if you play fair!
HFTT, can you explain your comment?
“I agree it may be ridiculous. But according to The Ontario Service Act and The Languages Act
Public Services are to offered in the two official languages.”
I tried searching but think you mean the Ontario French Languages Services Act & Official Languages Act federally. Few here have a problem with providing services to people who need help. I believe there is a need for more clear guides, done in a less expensive manner, and in a way that people are not forced to learn another language to work for governments they pay for.
A Francophone court judge in the Yukon “demanded” a 15 million dollar high school be built for 41 students in 1911. Is that good use of tax dollars?
What we see on the English side, is giving an inch translates into giving a mile, as the French side (Quebec) gets transfer payments galore and thumb their nose at the givers.
Sorry, that ruling was 2011 not 1911.
@ Oldmam & Edudyorlik
Thanks for the info, certainly didn’t make me feel any better thou .
What a bloody mess our country is in.
I wish Harper would crack the whip & put an end to this BS!!!
@ hftt
See, even u admit its crazy to accomodate for only 1 minority language-French. Just bc its the law certainly doesnt make it right…For example; abortion, capital punishment, slavery, womans rights, etc…
Time to change the “law of the land” & bring fairness back !!
Hungry for the Truth….
Please don’t dance around with your words -make it simple and not drawn out .
You admitted that language laws are unfair but what of these questions I had asked of you
Should language have more precedence then merit for government job?
Should Quebec with 15-17% English not provide bilingual service ?yet Ontario with 4% Francophones provide bilingual services?
Quebec Government introduced language laws to prevent”assimilation of French to English” is it not the same to assimilate all 200 cultures to French with the artificial demand by government jobs as well as language law outside Quebec?
Explain to me how you would proportionately provide language services in the spirit of democracy that is representation by population?
I am not asking to eliminate French but to better provide proportional hiring and services so that 80% of the population have equal representation with those hiring and services!
Hungry for the Truth….
July 13, 2013 at 4:36 am
“The Languages Laws in themselves do not discriminate. It is the APPLICATION of a LAW that becomes measurable on it’s Fairness, accessibility and discrimination.”
Here we disagree if it were not for language laws would there be discrimination based on language?
Why must one language be more pronounced as required “By LAW”then another ?Does that mean one is deemed more important then the other?
That is discriminatory in itself!
A free society is not dictated by the state what language spoken or written;be it on their signs or what words that are to come out of their mouths.
“Having a Law rescinded or modified that has been entrenched into the Constitution would require amending the Constitution. From where I sit it appears to be a very LONG, and arduous not to mention challenging road.”
Are we asking for the law to be rescinded?no -but to have a fair MEASURABLE approach .
The french Services Language act is an Ontario policy -thereby not required to have the FEDERAL constitution amended
-I do not agree with language laws as I believe a free person to have a right of choice! IF Both Federal and Provincial must institute such laws it needs to be reflective of the population and fair measurable approach
-Stats Canada remains a great source and representation by population IS the fair MEASURABLE approach for implementation of such laws.
Hi English Lassie.
You are welcome and yes, I echo your same words back,
“What a bloody mess our country is in.”
And, every time I discuss the individual elements of what is going on in this country with people (either those in my circle or those new people whom I am trying to enlighten about what IS GOING ON), I find myself uttering a similar phrase – which is — How the he11 is it possible that the English majority of this country is allowing such things to be.
How on earth can the people of this country accept the FACT that
– Our Prime minister is now being chosen from a mere 17% of the TOTAL population of the people in this country.
How on earth can the people of this country accept the FACT that
In order to advance beyond a certain rank in the freaking Royal Canadian military ones MUST be proficient in the minority language of a mere 17% of the population (of which I point out a good 14% — of them — know English).
How on earth can the people of this country accept the FACT that
The province of Quebec to be allowed to do things such as treat the Anglophone minority there as if they are NOT EVEN Canadian citizens who deserve the protection of their own constitution as well as their own federal government to say the least?
How on earth can the people of this country accept the FACT that
– The province of Quebec is allowed to remove the Canadian flag from their legislature and treat both the English language and the Canadian flag like dirt?
How on earth can the people of this country accept the FACT that
– The province of Quebec can hold hostage the historical realities of this countries past and to go beyond that to alter that past so as to “cleanse” those elements that are deemed to be a little hard for the French to swallow. You know, like the fact that they DO NOT allow a statue of the victorious James Wolfe to stand on the Plains of Abraham. But yet, allow a bunch of thugs to stop a re-enactment of the battle with the threat of violence?
———————————
As much as I respect the fact that French is a wonderful language and it deserves it’s place in this country, I still find it VERY difficult to believe that people who were born and raised in a country called Canada cannot (and often refuse to) speak what everyone calls “one of the official languages of the country” and what I like to call “the common language” of the country of Canada. ENGLISH…
And of course, this is a constant reminder – to me – (and should also be a constant remind TO ALL CANADIANS) of — THE FACT that — we are being conned. Because — To the French and Quebec, “Canada indeed has “two official language” when they are selling their side of this issue but, when it comes to THEM adhering to this ideal we suddenly see that — one of the so called “official languages” – completely disappears and is afforded ZERO worth.
This is a double standard that SHOULD BE (figuratively speaking) “SHOUTED DOWN” as soon as ANYONE attempts to use it. It should be an element that stops ALL conversation on this issue THERE AND THEN.
This ridiculous statement either say’s that Quebec IS NOT PART OF CANADA (and, if that is the case, IT MUST BE dealt with accordingly from THIS MOMENT FORWARD)
Or, it illustrates the disingenuous intent of the person uttering the phrase. THE CON.
I am SO FED UP with seeing how people (especially Anglo’s) are happily going along and swallowing this double standard, double speak con job as if it’s all just peachy keep, equal and fine.
BECAUSE … IT IS NOT…
This reminds me… I received a response on YouTube from a person in Spain. It turns out they are dealing with a similar situation there, and though I don’t know enough about it to make any assertions, I do find some of the points VERY important to note:
I decided to share them with ya’ll. (see next post)
The issue in Spain i referred to in the previous post can be found here in response to this video …
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pC-_JK58tRM&lch=email_reply&lcor=1&lc=Nj22-MbK5pl3mBhfQaEbSuaDHA1o9X3ARoxI6sAL0TY&feature=em-comment_reply_received&hd=1
My input is obviously listed as edudyorlik.
The person from Spain is listed as DreisSniper.
Like i said, i don’t know enough to have an opinion but, it is quite eye opening to see the similarities (using educations & the schools, penalizing businesses & the money factor) with how this CON is being pulled off.
peachy keen 🙂
@Hungry for the Truth
While I do not specifically recall questions that required your input, I do not have any objection to you requiring clarification.
I accept that your intentions are void of sarcasm as are mine and that the objective of the following information is for the purpose of the clarity to which you seek.
As a writer two immediate areas of consideration that must be taken into account are comprehension and interpretation of the reader.
Please accept that the following is not meant in a condescending manner. Lunacy of Richard’s logic could have been stated interchangeably with absurdity of Richard’s reasoning. Does your interpretation change as the result of the substitution of two words with their respective synonyms or your comprehension?
Often interpretation is used to mask or justify a lack of comprehension. Possibly the most common cause of this situation is that the reader is going to fast or mentally adding (reading into) something which actually not present. I did not infer anything I was simply stating that I felt that the thought process Richard used was flawed, period.
Paragraphs deal with one point and act as a subdivision for a composition on a common theme. Flawed reasoning resulting in mistaking wants for rights was the theme or focus of my discourse.
The use of “certain individuals” applied to those using flawed reasoning. So it would be a safe deduction that Richard could be included. However I specifically used paragraph structure to change from Richard specifically to individuals generally. The concept being that when dealing with any sub group (pick a colour, pick a religion, pick a language or pick anything for that matter which distinguishes one group from another) it can take a relatively small minority “certain individuals” to alter the perception of the group that they represent as a whole.
I have hopefully remedied that your conclusion that the focus was on the “individual Richard” was without merit and that the danger or reality of branding being the outcome of flawed reasoning was the larger picture.
Perhaps I look at things on a much larger scale with a certain sadness as to the pettiness that seems to prevail. After all HftT are we not simply all humans simply trying to co exist on a big ball.
Regards, David.
Food for thought….we may not interpret the same, but we all stand in the same light.
@Highlander,
In response……
“Here we disagree if it were not for language laws would there be discrimination based on language?”
We can agree to disagree.
Law is a system of rules and guidelines which are Enforced through social institutions. The Languages Laws in themselves do not discriminate. It is the Enforcement through Policies that governs behaviour.
“Should language have more precedence then merit for government job?”
Marxist doctrine asserts that law will not be required once the state has withered way. It does not seem to be on any governments agenda to wither away. Until then if individuals decide to work in the Public sector they will have to conform to the Policy requirements of the institutions or find a way to change them.
“Why must one language be more pronounced as required “By LAW”then another ?Does that mean one is deemed more important then the other? That is discriminatory in itself!”
Historically Laws have been legislated by government to bring corrective measures in the behaviours that we’re found to be of concern to a majority of it’s Citizens. Without getting into a five W debate, I can safely conclude that French language legislation enacted we’re for the same reasons. I do not believe one to be more Important than the other but Equal. Discrimination is not in the Law, it is in it’s Enforcement.
“Quebec Government introduced language laws to prevent”assimilation of French to English” is it not the same to assimilate all 200 cultures to French with the artificial demand by government jobs as well as language law outside Quebec?”
I”ll answers in two parts. To the first part of your question about assimilation I refer you to my above answer. If it is legislated?
As for the second part about “artificial demands”
I think the answer can be found in the Canadian Charter of Rights. Their is no measurable tool that can determine the way Citizens will choose. To remain respectful and inclusive the Law is so. If someone from New Brunswick exercisers their “Right to relocate” to Manitoba when they relocate they have access to
Canada’s Equal Service Standards.
“Should Quebec with 15-17% English not provide bilingual service ?yet Ontario of
with 4% Francophones provide bilingual services?”
Again, Let me refer you to my above answers. And I personally see it as a theoretical media tic inflation of a non existing problem. Radical’s can be found all sides.
“A free society is not dictated by the state what language spoken or written;be it on their signs or what words that are to come out of their mouths.”
I agree 100% and I also believe that a Democracy only works when all it’s citizens are mindful of being tolerant and respectful of one another.
“Explain to me how you would proportionately provide language services in the spirit of democracy that is representation by population?”
I will separately post my answers to your above question and the remaining ones.
Got to go now, my Sand Box is waiting!
@ Highlander
“Explain to me how you would proportionately provide language services in the spirit of democracy that is representation by population?”
If I was Commissioned,?
CONSULTION AND MIND SET….
I would start with a reading of all Canadian Federal Laws.
I would remain objective, fair and equitable in my views
I would not discriminate on languages, colour, sex ,religion, age, race or ethnic origin.
I would consider all Canadians to be Equal.
PRACTICAL APPLICATION FRAME WORK
Then I would commission a Mandatory National Languages only Survey.
Then I would reissue SIN cards with Language Tracking Identity.
Then I would make the SIN card mandatory use to receive any Public Services. (like a credit card)
This new SIN-Language Identifier Card (SINLIC) would allow me “real time” information.
This would allow me to accurately evaluate ACTUAL service provision vs. EXPECTED.
This would allow me to have a more reflective accurate individual view of services by regions, cities, and municipalities.
This would allow data on actual services requested, in which languages, which service and at what time.
Then with this Factual Data I would proceed to retro-fitting existing Policies that Enforces the Languages Act.
Accurate “real time” data to establish fair reflective Hiring Policies. What a concept!
If this new approach of data collection was to be implemented it would result in much more accurate and fair Linguistic Service Delivery Policy.
Visitors would be exempted with proof of residency.
“-Stats Canada remains a great source and representation by population IS the fair MEASURABLE approach for implementation of such laws.”
Theoretical Statistical Data analysis is a flawed and inaccurate to evaluate the basic question “Who will come.” The present data provides a general view of “How many” from which region but can never answer the ultimate question “How may will come.” Thus, the policies are developed on expectations. In this new approach the “Will they come” is replaced with “They have come” and how many, for which service, at what time. and where ?…..
This how I would do it Highlander.
And there’s more, but I’m concerned you’ll accuse me of Ranting…!
Got to now, my Sand box is waiting!
And on and on it goes. With quebec out of Canada, bilingualism of any degree would be unnecessary and unwelcomed.
The sooner quebec leaves the better Canada will be.
Then on CFN we can discuss the economy, health care and the like knowing that billions of dollars will be focused on the needs of Canadians and not on bilingualism . quebec can about its merry way, knowing all that is sacred to them will be protected and they can once and for all complete the purge of the English there.
We in Canada can pursue our English destiny and the natural order of things will evolve as they should.
Peter you’re so whacked some times 🙂 Our English destiny? WTF? Dude look at other countries. They have no problems with multiple languages. I get that the “politics” of Quebec and demanding ridiculous things like our military officers not getting promoted unless they’re highly bilingual is insane, but there’s nothing wrong with having a diverse country.
There is no real English culture in Canada other than some Loyalists that give claim going back to England. Simply that the vast majority of the country speak English as a common language and should be able to get jobs and not go through odd hoops because of social engineering.
Some of the crap you spew actually works against you as it chases away the middle of the pack. Extremism never works dude.
@HIGHLANDER
When I truly want a definitive answer I phrase the question to require a simple yes or no so that any further information is justification material only. When an individual skates around and provides everything but a simple yes or no you are probably dealing with a politician or an idiot, but then I repeat myself. (Paraphrase of a Samuel Clements quote)
Example: Should language be considered above competency for employment in the public service.
Just a second here HIGHLANDER upon review you did ask it as a simple yes or no requirement. What you got in response was breakaway BS in other words an individual who either did not wish to supply his direct response or could not.
You just nailed it Admin. There might indeed be issues re “official bilingualism” that should be addressed, but most of the over-the-top BS expressed by people who have an obvious hate on for Francophones and Quebecois does nothing to help their cause. Squawking about a rude postal worker, or a French sign by the Trans Canada Highway, or saying that the English language is illegal in Quebec simply makes these freedom-fighters look like fools.
I offer some free advice to English freedom-fighters. Here it is. Get a pencil and write it down. Facts trump BS. BS only gets laughed at. This is why your cause is going nowhere.
You’re welcome.
Furtz
Admin. I can see how the delivery of my fellow poster sounds extreme but, i MUST SAY. After 35 (or more years) of the English element (shall we call it/them) in this country TRYING desperately to be accommodating with everything you can imagine including packaging and so on, ONLY to now be faced with these “reverse” restrictions (from the minority no less) which you mentioned about the military and also how difficult it is now for Anglophones to get jobs in the government and so on (and so on). Does it not seem to you that this is more than just the “the way things are shaping up” in a natural way, just on their own? Doesn’t it seem more incessant? More like a “plan of action” a way to finally make good on the pledge “Je me souviens” that has been staring us all in the face for so many years.
Seriously. I thought this could work back in 1995 at the last referendum when i took to the streets and stood in the crowd with my candle and my sign saying, let’s stay together. Canada is a better country if we are all ONE.
But, you know what Jamie? Things only got worse. And more restrictive. And it was again, only ONE SIDE that was making things worse, and only ONE side that was demanding more and more and more while the other side kept giving, and giving, and making it easier, and allowing laws to be passed that minimize them even more.
Now, we find ourselves in a situation where by all the nice accommodating things that were done in order to show how we were willing to be fair and equitable are only producing a scenario where by the opposing team or (in this case, it seems) opposing adversary was using our nice accommodating ways to take advantage of us and building up silent strategic victories, one after another with elements of power, strength and OUR OWN DAMN MONEY deeply embedded in the system that used to be that of the majority.
And, instead of meeting in the center they are now moving in for the kill (metaphorically speaking of course) but still, this means a detrimental state IN REAL terms when one considers that a minority has literally forced the majority to give up enough power that the minority NOW has the potential to BE IN POWER.
AND MAKING FULL USE of it.
It would be one thing if the rally’s in 1995 had made us — ALL — accommodating but
IT didn’t … And we have to accept that.
If someone punches you in the face then before you retaliate they say sorry so you take the high road and forgive them only to have them punch you in the face again. You are NOT going to be so easily forgiving the next time round.
In this case it’s been 4 or 5 or 6 times with this type of experience. Don’t forget they wanted to leave more than once and they have told us in no uncertain terms that French is THE only language. they even refuse to speak or learn English while demanding we learn french.
NOT equal…
And in the end, all that happened was the English opened the door while the French walked right on in with their set of “other plans and ideas.”
Let’s just say. From what i can tell (and seems VERY OBVIOUS) they don’t appear to have the same “accommodating type ideas based in equality and fairness” that the English had in mind.
The Ambulance story and the so called “official reaction to it” which caused Marc Bergeron to wake up AND STAND UP in Montreal is PURE proof of this.
We’ve had ENOUGH. We tried. We did everything we could. But, it ain’t happening. It will never be enough FOR THEM. No matter what we give up. And, there comes a time when the limit is reached. This is it. We must part ways. They DO NOT want anything to do with a culture that is NOT like theirs and that’s fine. But just like the addict. We have to accept the first step. THEN MOVE ON from there.
—
______\||/
_____(o o)
—-ooO-(_)-Ooo——-
Now look what you’ve done admin. Furtz has ascended to heaven and had an orgasm 🙂
Kilroy I get it. I also get that one “redneck kinda comment” from the peanut gallery destroys the possibility of real debate or discussion.
There is hatred from elements of both sides of the argument. There is a lot of frustration.
The status quo doesn’t work except for a small majority and that’s not how it should work.
But you can’t just rip over 40 years in one swipe. The first step is having an open and honest debate even if there’s some nasty to it.
The second is deciding what we all really want. Obviously Quebec is clear on how it wants to run itself which is very different than most of the rest of Canada.
The question then is what does Canada really want?
And if we get that far then it’s a simple matter of deciding how to move forward.
HYPOTHETICALLY, and this is just brain farting. If Quebec wants to be Unilingually French to the point of telling Canadians what they can speak during break time then how far fetched would it be for Canadians to simply say that the rest of Canada (with the possible exception of New Brunswick) would want to be unilingually English?
The issue isn’t really the offering of French service at the Federal level. Is it? That can be done without what Official Bilingualism has turned into.
While there may be advantages to having an officially bilingual Canada they certainly have not proven to be financially proven over the last 40 years.
Again, honest debate in good faith goes along way even if parties disagree.
The owner of that store stated very clearly that their employees can speak any language they want, and the idiot supervisor was suspended for being a jerk. You gonna milk this story forever?
I forgot to add the infamous…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=3kNcFyBofC4#t=18s
And also to ask, is there NOT a limit? And beyond that, in all seriousness, does it not seem that what this girl and others in this video are saying — IS A REAL thing —
It’s has a living truth to it. Not in a way that i hate the French or anything like that. it’s TRUE in a way that we are different. being half and half, I actually relate to what they are saying and I feel it inside me also. I believe Trudeau recognized this too.
We should go our separate ways.. It would be better for EVERYONE. it would allow Quebec what it wants and it WOULD SAVE the rest of Canada from what IT DOES NOT deserve.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIgk5Kr0tXQ&hd=1
@David Oldham
July 13, 2013 at 5:03 pm
“I’m all in favour of the democratic principle that one idiot is as good as one genius, but I draw the line when someone takes the next step and concludes that two idiots are better than one genius.”
Leo Szilard
@David Oldham
July 13, 2013 at 5:03 pm
Check the post before engaging your moth before your brain
as you’ve suggested others do.
Hungry for the Truth…. July 13, 2013 at 3:43 pm
@Highlander,
In response……
“Give me a smart idiot over a stupid genius any day.”
Samuel Goldwyn
Got to go now, my Sand box is waiting!
Jamie your take on the handling of the language issue is bang on.
The way they approach the subject leave many Canadians indifferent. They do not like the BS nor the ramifications.
If the freedom fighters had a different approach, a professional game plan and were not so militant and vocal about wanting to separate this country, perhaps they would be taken more seriously.
They should go about their business and leave the true patriotic Canadians alone.
I am reading a book right now called “The Canadian FUHRER” which is very similar to what I see going on now. A man, who ran for elections several times in Quebec and lost, who will do anything, say anything, whether it is factual or not in order to gain support for his radical agenda, which in this case was to eliminate the JEWISH people. (non-fiction) In this case they want to separate a peaceful nation and do away with the French.
Yes, the book does speak about the French and their expectations, which is no worse then the English demands of entitlement now
Stella some of “them” are the victims of this bizarre and divisive policy that’s creeping across Canada called “Official Bilingualism”. I have yet to see you stand up for their rights.
Not everyone can be eloquent. Sometimes fear and frustration; anger and hurt come out in many ways.
This is what language politics are doing to Canada and Canadians from coast to coast. That has to end.
@admin RE: POST on July 13, 2013 at 6:16 pm.
Tres bon 🙂
@Hungry for the Truth
A most disappointing response . I was hoping for a challenge .
Well visiting the CCH this early morning I have to say that at least the superficial changes look good……
Admin says “The first step is having an open and honest debate even if there’s some nasty to it.”
Please, stellabystarlight, Richard, HFTT, Jules, and Furtz, write a letter to the editor and get this process started. We all can send that information to politicians across the country. Wouldn’t it be great to tell our grand kids we had a small part to play in Canada’s language peace?
Start with a maximum wanted and a minimum to settle for, and reduce the time to end this.
It is hard for someone to stand up for English rights when one feels their concerns are unjustified. We all have experienced at one time or other that we were not treated fairly, felt we were the best candidate for a job only to be denied for whatever reasons. THE DIFFERENCE HERE IS: We deal with it, analyse the situation, do a little introspection and MOVE ON.
Is it not the employer’s right to set their your own criteria and requirements when openings become available? Is it not the employer’s right to chose whoever they want and whoever will best suit their needs?
Like highlander so proudly said and proved many time by his posts: “BECAUSE ONE HAS SOME FORM OF EDUCATION DOESN’T MEAN THEY ARE SMART” nor does it mean that they are the best candidate for the job.
As for some claiming they understand French, can read, write and speak it but could never get a decent job, my comment to that would never be allowed by the moderator………,
Eric wrote: “Wouldn’t it be great to tell our grand kids we had a small part to play in Canada’s language peace”
OMG ERIC…..that is funny. Had the freedom fighters not started this BS, we wouldn’t have to tell our grand kids anything. They would grow up knowing they were born in a country that is the envy of the world.
Stella are you telling porkies now? It’s not that people can read, write, and speak French, but to what levels? I truly believe many Francophones could not pass some of these high level language proficiency tests.
Jamie……….Would you allow me to elaborate? I would give you a great example if allowed.
As for your other comment…..you are right, I know a French person who wrote the test 3 times, it’s called determination. In the end, it pays, just like learning both officials languages paid for those who chose to learn both.
stellabystarlight
July 13, 2013 at 7:42 pm
“If the freedom fighters had a different approach, a professional game plan and were not so militant and vocal about wanting to separate this country”
Perhaps Stella you can trash talk the TRUE people that are trying to separate the country your brethren the separatists.
stellabystarlight
July 14, 2013 at 6:44 am
“It is hard for someone to stand up for English rights when one feels their concerns are unjustified.”
Funny when one is blind by Idealism as yourself you become blind and deaf to the plight of those that are disadvantaged by your idealism’s.
stellabystarlight
July 14, 2013 at 7:21 am
“OMG ERIC…..that is funny. Had the freedom fighters not started this BS, we wouldn’t have to tell our grand kids anything.”
Stella there you go trash talking people who want fairness and equality _No its the Langauge laws that has started all this B.S.
You remain a hateful individual :
admin
July 13, 2013 at 6:16 pm
“There is hatred from elements of both sides of the argument. There is a lot of frustration.”
I believe admin had you(Stella ) in mind when he wrote this statement .*******smile******
admin
July 13, 2013 at 7:44 pm
“Stella some of “them” are the victims of this bizarre and divisive policy that’s creeping across Canada called “Official Bilingualism”. I have yet to see you stand up for their rights.”
Very well said Admin ,but Stella prefers to attack those victims much like the backlash when south African blacks wanted to be equal in standing.
Her claim that we want to separate the country is why she speaks up here …yet a separatist government exists in Quebec who only intention is to separate the country …yet not a word directed there !
All this to say her intentions is not to prevent a separation of the country but to maintain that “DISTINCT ADVANTAGE” AS ALLOCATED TO THE” DISTINCT SOCIETY “.
Must the 80% of English population be assimilated to French to have opportunities to work for their own government?
From my understanding language laws were put in Quebec to prevent assimilation of French to English -yet we have language laws outside of Quebec that promote assimilation!
If french is not part of ones heritage having to learn french is assimilation -the same assimilation that bill 101 and 14 are implemented for.
People you must realize the state should not be mandating what language you are to speak or write ,that should remain a choice ;if not you really are not a FREE PEOPLE.
Quebec is following a path similar to 1930’s Fascist Germany and Canada is playing along with this.
stellabystarlight
July 13, 2013 at 7:42 pm
“I am reading a book right now called “The Canadian FUHRER” which is very similar to what I see going on now. A man, who ran for elections several times in Quebec and lost, who will do anything, say anything, whether it is factual or not in order to gain support for his radical agenda,”
Very telling…Perhaps that individual has become an MP and his agenda is to continue to follow in his fathers footsteps….he did state that Quebec should run the country!
I do believe that Canada is the sum of all its regions not just one,but yes a radical agenda!
Good Morning, to all my Fellow Canadians.
Summer is here and the weather is great!
Some of us are maybe planning little get excursions!
Some of us might even find ourselves in Quebec! Some times when we’re away from home we like to get a feel of the city we visit. To help you along I’ve found some info that can be useful on your trip that I’m glad to share.
I was so happy to see that English Speaking Canadians visiting Quebec can be informed in the language of their choice!
The Province’s English-language television stations are,
CBMT, CFCF, CTV, GLOBAL, CITY TV, CBC and OMNI.
These stations are available on cable throughout the Province.
If your in the mood for a Daily News Paper
The Gazette (English)
Maybe your more in the mood for a WeeklyWeekly newspapers
The Suburban(English) Exlaim! (English) West Island Chronicle (English) Westmount Examiner (English) East End Suburban (English) The Eastern Door (English) Montreal Times (English) The Montrealer (English) The Senior Times (English) West End Times (English) Westmount Independent (English)
Or maybe a Campus newspapers
The Englishem, Concordia University (English), The Concordian (English), The McGill Daily (English) Le Delit farncais McGill (French), McGill Tribune (English) The Bull & Beat (English) and more…
If Radio is more your thing there are there are about 40
Stations available and out of them there are about half
that are English or Bilingual.
And of course if you want Information on a location to help you plan, the Qbecec Government’s website is in English.
How thoughtful of them!
Bonne Vacances! Have a safe Trip,
HftT.
Feel free Stella. I’m all for open clean debate.
Highlander wrote: Perhaps Stella you can trash talk the TRUE people that are trying to separate the country your brethren the separatists.
Like I said before this guy has tunnel vision. Only sees what he wants to see. Does the name “PETER” for one of many, ring a bell? Is he not a freedom fighter like you?
HFTT…….3rd standing ovation by your French fans BRAVO!!!!!
That says it all!!!! The freedom fighters are right again….no English in Quebec…..**smile**
Stay tuned adm…..will be right back to respond.
Jamie wrote: It’s not that people can read, write, and speak French, but to what levels?
Exactly my point. Some claim to be bilingual, that claim is many times inaccurate. Example: One guy in particular claims he married a French woman, he can read, write and speak French, yet he tells the world that he is working at a menial job because his French isn’t good enough.
Guess what? It isn’t. Heard it, saw it written and definitely needs polishing.
Let me say this, if I was looking for a bilingual employee, this guy would never stand a chance and here is why.
If a position becomes vacant and requires a fully bilingual person, one must be able to first of all and most importantly, be able to talk and write in both languages in a manner that he/she can be understood in order to avoid misunderstandings and confusing, especially if working in the medical field.
Are the laws too stringent……..ABSOLUTELY NOT.