Discrimination
Discrimination. The big D word. A word most readily used by many though rarely meritable in its’ use. In our contemporary world of political correctness, discrimination is one of many ‘buzzwords’ that forms a politicians’ lexicon of verbal spaghetti. Political figures love to throw around the idea that one group of people are often discriminated against by another group of people or even by a nation’s laws. It is a fantastic vote grabber for those most instrumental in the art of politics. The truth however, in this day and age, is that rarely are modern-day laws discriminatory in their practice, right?
Wrong!
Have you ever heard of the concepts of affirmative action or what we like to call employment equity in Canada? These are concepts that were instituted into Canadian law to help level the playing field for those who have traditionally suffered the ill consequences of discrimination; especially in the job market. Under the Constitution Act of 1982, containing the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; equity legislation is detailed therein. The Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) is enforced by the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) and it is this commission that deals with whether or not discrimination has taken place in the workplace.
The following details the issue of Prohibited Grounds of Discrimination in Canada: (Belcourt, Bohlander, & Snell, Managing Human Resources, 5th Canadian Edition, 2008).
Race or colour
Religion
Physical or mental disability
Dependence on alcohol or drugs
Age
Sex
Marital status
Family status
Sexual orientation
National or ethnic origin (including linguistic background)
Ancestry of place of origin
Language
Social Condition or origin
Source of income
Assignment, attachment or seizure of pay
Based on association
Political belief
Record of criminal conviction
Pardoned conviction
While appearing like a fair and equitable approach to the issue of fairness in hiring practices; employment equity actually creates the framework for unfair hiring criteria – whereby the best qualified person may be the most successful candidate but may not be chosen due to government imposed employment equity legislation. Case-in-point; consider the possibility of two highly qualified candidates applying for the same government or private sector industry, job. One candidate, a qualified counselor who, as a child, was raised in the atmosphere of a same sex marriage; understands the very real social challenges faced by his/her same sex parents. One could surmise that not only is this individual qualified as a counselor; but has the added experience of being raised in a non-traditional family setting, outside of the traditional nuclear family. The other candidate is also a highly qualified counselor but is a homosexual. By the very definition and reasoning for employment equity, chances are that the successful candidate will be chosen due to his/her sexuality and not necessarily for his/her skills.
Another scenario if you will. Imagine an Aboriginal couple fostering a non-Aboriginal child who is raised and immersed in Aboriginal culture. He/she has a university/college education associated with his/her chosen field; speaks an Aboriginal language, is well-versed in the culture and customs associated with the First Nation and has all the credentials required of someone who could work for a government or non-government Aboriginal organization. The other candidate also has some or most of these qualifications but has one added qualification. Their ethnicity or race is of a First Nation. Once again, by the very definition and reasoning for employment equity, chances are that the successful candidate will be chosen due to his/her ethnicity or race and not necessarily for his/her skills.
Sound like rare or improbable cases and scenarios to you? I can attest that they’re not. They’re increasingly happening everyday in Canada and Human Resources professionals have had to contend with the issue of unfair hiring criteria that these laws have created since at least 1995 with the Employment Equity Act.
If you think at this point that our Canadian employment laws are unfair and unjustified then I have even more bad news for you. Consider the above information I’ve provided about Employment Equity. Add to this the increasingly unfair bilingual language requirements as well and you can see where things are headed. A politically correct society where in the quest for fairness we’ve permitted a very unfair system to flourish unchallenged by the people themselves. We need to ask ourselves if Canada’s employment and language laws are really a reflection of what we encompass and value as a society or if our various levels of government are attempting through social engineering, to shape and mould the people’s consciousness to the system itself. In other words, do the people work for the system or should the system work for the people?
Ever heard of the concept of a ‘bona fide occupational qualification’? Believe it or not, this concept currently exists in Canada and it allows for discrimination in hiring! That’s right folks. You read that correctly. In the very ‘Act’, the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) whose existence is to prohibit discriminatory hiring practices there exists government-sponsored discriminatory hiring! As Belcourt et al. reports (2008):
The act applies to all federal government departments and agencies, to Crown corporations, and to other businesses and industries under federal jurisdiction, such as banks, airlines, railway companies, and insurance and communications companies. For those areas not under federal jurisdiction, protection is available under provincial human rights laws. Provincial laws, although very similar to federal ones, do differ from province to province. Every province and territory has a human rights act (or code), and each has jurisdiction prohibiting discrimination in the workplace. The prohibited grounds of discrimination in employment include race, religion, sex, age, national or ethnic origin, physical handicap, and marital status…Employers are permitted to discriminate if employment preferences are based on a bona fide occupational qualifications (BFOQ) or BFOR (bona fide occupational requirement). A BFOQ is justified if the employer can establish necessity for business operations. In other words, differential treatment is not discrimination if there is a justifiable reason. (106)
This sounds an awful lot like Orwell’s, Animal Farm, where Commandment #7 which originally stated that:
“All animals are equal”
Was eventually changed to,
“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”
Is this the kind of Canada we want to live and work in? Surely the ideology of an individual’s rights should trump group rights in all respects. Should it not? Otherwise, we need to ask ourselves if we truly live in a democracy where all citizens enjoy the same rights and privileges as all others. As of this writing, the majority of our citizenry cannot work for their civil service or hold the highest office of the land due to nothing more than a lack of knowledge of one of Canada’s minority languages.
Please keep in mind that,
“All Canadians are equal, but some Canadians are more equal than others”
Cory Cameron
Timmins, On
Sunday August 25, 2013
(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.)
Please click the banner below and subscribe to CFN. We need 100 subscribers by September 2013 to bring back Seaway Radio!
highlander August 30, 2013 at 7:45 pm
“OMG YOU SHOULD NOW HAVE THE CROWN FOR RANT.”
“OH THE WRITTEN DIARRHEA IS STRONG IN THIS ONE ,I SMELL IT FROM HERE.”
Why read it, if it’s beyond your capacities to understand.? Why read it if allyou can do is criticize and blame others. No one cares about your negativity.
“THE CATHOLIC CHURCH OPPRESSED THE FRENCH FAR MORE THEN YOU ARE BLAMING THE ENGLISH FOR.”
If you were Francophone you were generally relegated to the lowest rungs of the ladder. In some companies, even the position of foreman was exclusively held by Anglophones. To have any chance at advancement within the Company, most upper level positions required fluency in English, and French was considered an asset.
The Catholic Church did this also. The English Supremacy of the early 1900’s it was the French Catholic church that did that to?
The problem here, of course, is that most white Americans DO acknowledge the injustice done to Black people in the US, whereas, most English Canadians refuse to accept, that they are responsible for any injustices done to anyone, francophone, native or anyone.
I am not BLAMING any one I am recounting a time of factual history that denotes discrimination against the French Canadians.
Those who do not or WILL NOT remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” And will seek to blame others.
@ HFTT
The reasons for English dominance, were the french themselves.
I direct you to study the policies of the following three quebec premiers, Godbout, Tachereau and Duplessis. From 1920 through 1959 they ,along with the Catholic church, PURPOSELY evoked policies of keeping the french on the farms and ignorant.
This provided a pool of cheap labor. They then INVITED British and U.S. Companies to come to quebec and take advantage of this cheap labor, along with great tax incentives that these premiers gave these companies. These premiers then helped themselves to THEIR CUT
Given that the majority of the french were uneducated and discouraged from acquiring an education by the above premiers and the church, there were very few qualified french to fill the managerial positions.
So if you are quoting historical fact, get it right.
BYW: Both Canadian prime minters, McKenzie King and R.B. Bennett, offered to quebec grants to industralize and to educate the french workforce, particularly after the depression, and these grants and offers WERE REFUSED.
Perhaps you shuld also look at the readings of Lional L’Abbe Groulx, to research the real reasons there was dominance by the English.
It was the french THEMSELVES that are to blame.
This is never mentioned by any quebecois, why?? because their entire myth of English control would be put in doubt.
Now you know”the rest of the story”
most English Canadians refuse to accept, that they are responsible for any injustices done to anyone, francophone, native or anyone.
Hftt I’d mirror that statement right back at you except what was done in the past had to do with standards back then and the fact that small businesses would tend to hire friends and family and as they grew into bigger ones spread as such. There were French companies back then too where you’d see the same behaviour.
I had a friend whose grand-father had the first cable outlet in Sorel Quebec. He’d bus out from Montreal and get called all sorts of nasty names as he slowly built his business as he wasn’t a Francophone.
The difference is the systemic and governmental injustice created by multiple bills like 101 which drove more total Francophones out of Quebec than Anglophones. If you really believe what you typed and aren’t just being political I would suggest a therapist for you too so that you can deal with your historical neurosis.
One set of laws should be enough for all of us. Not in Quebec you can do this and in the ROC you can do that.
admin August 31, 2013 at 6:20 am
“If you really believe what you typed and aren’t just being political I would suggest a therapist for you too so that you can deal with your historical neurosis.”
What I typed is factual Historical Evidence taken from history books. Not my personal interpretation. This is part of History as it happened. As for your suggestion that I need a therapist, let me assure you I do not suffer from any historical or present neurosis.
I have family that have lived in Montreal all their lives. I have worked in Montreal and I am well aware of the realistic conditions that existed and exist today.
“One set of laws should be enough for all of us. Not in Quebec you can do this and in the ROC you can do that.”
In order to have fairness to “one set of laws”we would have to repeal all Provincial rights to self governance. It is not just Quebec that that has a variance in their language laws.
Ontario has a set of their own. Canada has another and NB another. Alberta, BC, Territories have another. They are all different one from the other. If you move from Quebec
to BC the laws are different.
sean August 31, 2013 at 5:47 am
“BYW: Both Canadian prime minters, McKenzie King and R.B. Bennett, offered to quebec grants to industralize and to educate the french workforce, particularly after the depression, and these grants and offers WERE REFUSED.”
The better thing to do is BLAME the French. It’s their own
FAULT if the Anglos got the upper hand.
If for one second sean you think that your fooling me with your new moniker! SURPRISE…..
They were to busy making babies to populate Quebec so
their would be more cheap labour.
“ As it’s been said before, most English Canadians omit the recollection of this time in history. They openly accuse the French Canadians. Never accepting any wrong doing.”
@ HFTT
Please name your sources???
Have you read J.M. S. Careless??? Volumes 1 and 11???
Have you read the the newspaper accounts through the 1920’s 30’s ,40’and 50’s ??? This includes the quebec newspapers as well as the English ones
Have you researched the articles and writings of Lionial L’abbe Groulx ???
As well the there are countless articles and research materials with in the Canadian and quebec archives to support my claims.
Please reference yours, I’d be very interested to read them
HFT maybe it’s time to stop focusing on the blame and start looking at solutions for the future? I’m sure people can look back and point fingers all around, but what we have today is a clusterpuck that only will hold us back in the future.
@ HFTT
You can speak, display and have NO RESTRICTION in the language of education in all of the provinces ,except quebec
So no HFTT, the laws are different in only one entity, quebec
wrong again HFTT
Well said, Jamie, ole
Well ,HFTT, then please, name your sources, you claim to have found your materials in “history books” , which ones.????
As for having babies, as an Irish quebecer, my grandmother, had 15 children. so the french culture was not the only group that produced children en masse, most people in the day had many children
You also failed to mention, companies like the CPR, CNR, Domtar, Redpath Sugar, Canadian Foundaries, and oh, and Power Corp, its president Paul Demarais, hardly an anglophone.
What about the Paladeaus, quebecor ,how about Bombardier, these are NOT ANGLOS sir.
All of these firms EMPLOYED mostly francophones and there were french presidents and upper management officers as well.
So please, sir, unless you can back up ,with facts, not suppositons your arguments are baseless. Spin it any way you want, but the true facts are there for all to see and research, if one is truly open minded and most of all HONEST
sean August 31, 2013 at 7:59 am
“You can speak, display and have NO RESTRICTION in the language of education in all of the provinces ,except quebec”
…..If at least one of your parents went to English school, you can go from day-care to University entirely in English in publicly funded institutions.
What would be the sense to have your child educated in English if you are French?
…..If neither of your parents went to English schools, you can still do the all-English education but your primary and secondary school education will be done in private schools.
You call them RESTRICTIONS I call them per-requisites.
I believe the PQ have already stated to influence history ,with what is required reading within school system.
The PQ propaganda machine at work,but hey it worked on Hungry didn’t it!
Sean thank you for the insight ,I have read that before about three quebec premiers, Godbout, Tachereau and Duplessis.
There is a good reason the Catholic Church is really hurting in Quebec-marry them young have lots of kids and do not educate yourself ….it always was about controlling the masses there .
highlander August 30, 2013 at 7:45 pm
Hungry for the Truth…. August 30, 2013 at 2:24 pm
OMG YOU SHOULD NOW HAVE THE CROWN FOR RANT.
“OH THE WRITTEN DIARRHEA IS STRONG IN THIS ONE ,I SMELL IT FROM HERE.
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH OPPRESSED THE FRENCH FAR MORE THEN YOU ARE BLAMING THE ENGLISH FOR.
THE REALITY IS THE CHURCH HAD ENCOURAGED THE FRENCH TO HAVE LARGE FAMILIES AND NOT NECESSARILY EDUCATION.”
THANK YOU highlander. I would have said this myself but was busy with several of “the” appointments.
“OH THE WRITTEN DIARRHEA IS STRONG IN THIS ONE ,I SMELL IT FROM HERE.”
Hungry for the Truth( AKA: lives for lies) wrote, “Why read it, if it’s beyond your capacities to understand.?
Why read it if all you can do is criticize and blame others. No one cares about your negativity.”
Why read it? Why read your posts? So we can be sure to refute your inaccuracies so that OTHERS READING IT DO NOT go away thinking your fantasy descriptions are correct WHICH THEY ARE NOT.
It is very biased. And frankly, this particular post is one of THEEE most telling posts that show you allegiances and alliances Mr. Hungry for truth but more factually lives for lies, AKA.
You are not interested in the truth at all. What a cover. What a moniker.
“most English Canadians refuse to accept, that they are responsible for any injustices done to anyone, francophone”
THIS STATEMENT (NO MATTER WHO SAYS IT) FOR THE MOST PART IS FALSE…
The FACT is, the English DO ACKNOWLEDGE these things BUT they do in such a different way that it is not recognized.
They are humble and more introverted (in both how they attack a problem and also how they deal with their own past transgressions)
The English did realize all of the negatives that transpired and they did (in their own way) make amends.
This is why TO THIS DAY the French have been allowed to attain the entrenchment within our Canadian system.
When the powers that be decided to make ALL packaging have 50% French on it IN ALL CORNERS of a country which, at the time only had a tiny 2% (approx) French population did the English protect or say anything? Maybe a little in some pockets which is to be expected in these kinds of situations as NOT ALL PEOPLE ARE THE SAME. But, for the most part the English felt guilt for past and figured this would (this was their way to) help patch the wounds.
Same with French on the money, French on the stamps and French in the government. And, despite the fact that they outnumbered the French in Quebec for many years they even let the French build up and take Quebec so they could do whatever they wanted with it.
Handing over different parts of Canada despite being the victors etc etc.
Those English that left when bill 101 took effect COULD VERY WELL have stood their ground and fought but they left and let the French have Quebec. Many believe this is because they didn’t have the backbone to fight but that is NOT entirely true.
They quietly accepted that it was “the thing to do” — ONCE AGAIN — to make up for past transgressions. They felt the French deserved Quebec.
We all (with the usual exceptions), as a a majority Anglophone nation allowed the French to have Quebec under this pretense.
Anyways, the English “didn’t push back at all” because they are more complacent yes, but also out a sense of owing, a sense of guilt for past transgressions.
They LET all of this stuff happen with out much of a peep. And we all know what happens when the kids are given free reign for a long period of time, right? That’s right then end up believing THAT ANYTHING GOES and they can DO WHATEVER THEY WISH.
BUT NOW… They are trying to take MORE AND MORE AND MORE
http://youtu.be/3kNcFyBofC4?t=17s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvyifj557p8&hd=1
Don’t forget (even if it is unpleasant TO SOME) the British did indeed win the war — and this MUST have SOME bearing and this MUST factor in with all of these things —
Need i remind anyone how different things would be if France had won?
Somehow, i don’t sense the same level of complacency and, shall we call it, “easygoingness” towards another culture literally “coming back” years later (Je Me souviens) and doing what the French are doing now. Yeah right !!
This is what we see happening today.
The French have not faced any push back for just about anything so they are spoilt little brats and believe ALL OF IT (this country) IS THEIRS.
This is why it’s TIME NOW to set the boundaries and say ENOUGH.
You have Quebec NOW be happy with that and STOP trying to make the REST OF CANADA a French nation.
And, to the English i say. We have made up for the “now admitted” wrongs of the past SO NOW it’s time to GET A BACKBONE.
Welcome back “sean” it’s nice to have your input on the historical side as that is more your area of expertise. Please “be good now :-)”
on August 31, 2013 at 8:43 am Hungry for the Truth (AKA lives for lies) Questioned
seans post on August 31, 2013 at 7:59 am
“You can speak, display and have NO RESTRICTION in the language of education in all of the provinces ,except quebec”
…..If at least one of your parents went to English school, you can go from day-care to University entirely in English in publicly funded institutions.
What would be the sense to have your child educated in English if you are French?
Ah hemmm, Hungry… Maybe perhaps that’s just uhmm the sheer fact that Quebec is INSIDE CANADA the country. Remember that little detail? NO, i guess you don’t or would liek to omit that FREAKIN FACT.
Yes, the country with English as it’s common dominant language.
It would do you well to WATCH THIS ONE.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUf4cC8N3m0&hd=1
(you will find that the French believe in this concept when applied to Quebec but for obvious reasons they completely dismiss it when it comes to AL OF CANADA)
———————-
…..If neither of your parents went to English schools, you can still do the all-English education but your primary and secondary school education will be done in private schools.
Hungry replies, “You call them RESTRICTIONS I call them per-requisites.”
OMG. Once again, i think i am going to throw up.
Well now your TRUE COLORS are REALLY showing hungry for truth (AKA lives for lies).
Sean August 31, 2013 at 5:15 am
“I certainly support quebec in its quest for separation.”
I’M SURE YOU DO AND YOU HAVE A SLUE OF FOLLOWERS.
concerned citizen 2 July 27, 2013 at 11:04 pm
“Hey I think I found the solution to the problem;
Referendum baby.. Quebec needs to conform to our Canadian democracy or take the door!!!”
“English Lassie July 26, 2013 at 5:28 pm
“Solution:
1) Goodbye Quebec
2) Abolish ALL language laws in Canada
3) One official language; ENGLISH
4) ANY second language is an asset
5) Provide translation services as needed
Pretty darn simple!”
“NPC July 30, 2013 at 8:20 am
This ,BTW, is not my first choice, but given the history and persistence of quebec , in her relationship with Canada and the events of the last ,particularly 20 years, it is time for them to go.”
THEY ALL SEEM TO SHARE IN YOUR QUEST. ALTHOUGH HIGHLANDER IS THE MORE RESERVED ONE. HE NEVER COMES RIGHT OUT AND DIRECTLY SAYS THAT QUEBEC SHOULD GO. BUT HE SUPPORTS THOSE THAT SUPPORTS THE QUEST. AND THEY ALL SEEM TO SHARE THE SAME COMMUNAL SPACE,
AND KEYBORAD.
highlander July 20, 2013 at 8:05 am
Right on there English Lassie.
THEN THERE’S THE APPARITIONS OF JURGEN AND DAVID OLDHAM WHEN RENFORCEMENT IS NEEDED. AND NOW WE HAVE SEAN. AFTER ALL READERS ARE NOT STUPID…..THEY CAN SEE & CONCLUDE. WHAT A SCAM……WHO IS TAKING THE READERS FOR STUPID. NEVER UNDERESTAMITE ONES ABILITY TO AFFECT CHANGE…..
admin August 31, 2013 at 7:53 am
“HFT maybe it’s time to stop focusing on the blame and start looking at solutions for the future? I’m sure people can look back and point fingers all around, but what we have today is a clusterpuck that only will hold us back in the future.”
On this we have 100% agreement . I’ve been questioning this issue for a while now. I’m all for solutions. Fixing and not blaming. But focus of 1 issue at a time is needed. You can’t fix it all in one swipe.
Hungry for the Truth…. July 17, 2013 at 2:16 pm
Is your objective to change All of Canada or FIX the unfairness and disparities on a more local level? Or is there intent to fix or just BLAME?
@ HFTT
Lets take your comments one at a time
1) If one of your parents attend an English school ,then you may attend an English school from grade one to university.
Well, what if both parents were educated in another country or both were educated in The U.S. Neither of these scenarios allow the parents to choose the language of edcation of their children .
As well parents should have the complete and total right to decide the language of education of their own children NOT THE STATE
2) What would be the point of having your child educated in English if you are french.
Well, lets see. The international language of the world is English, for starters. the fact the majority of the world recognizes as English as the premier language, of business, travel , industry and advancement. maybe these french parents recognize this and want the best for their children and do not wish to be hampered by restrictive and inane language laws.
BYW: there are thousands of french quebeckers who have quietly left quebec, for just this reason.
3) Why should parents who pay into the public purse, be FORCED to send their children to french school . This does not happen anywhere else in canada, or the free world.
BTW: the term PRE-REQUISITE refers mainly to academia and usually means one has to take a course ( specified) prior to going on to take a more advanced course.
Hope this helps
GREAT POST On August 31, 2013 at 5:47 am sean.
SO TRUE… Thank you…
YEssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
And admin ON August 31, 2013 at 6:20 am
BRILLIANT Jamie Brilliant. So timely and well said
I second and third this post of yours … BRAVO. Standing ovation…
Holy sh!t i’m starting to sound like someone we all know 🙂
Admin wrote,
“The difference is the systemic and governmental injustice created by multiple bills like 101 which drove more total Francophones out of Quebec than Anglophones.
If you really believe what you typed and aren’t just being political I would suggest a therapist for you too so that you can deal with your historical neurosis.”
And this attitude from Hungry for truth (AKA lives for lies) is what this country and all the good, kind and decent people (both French and English) are up against.
These people like hungry for truth have been brainwashed. AND YES, they truly believe the cr@p that was fed to them by the “French schools and curriculum.”
What’s worse is that I hear (from good sources) that the French immersion programs that are being taught by mostly folks with French backgrounds as they are typically the ONLY ones being hired in the “Canada wide” school system NOW are importing and teaching this bogus French historical view into the minds of English kids.
Hummm, where was that again? Historically speaking. I am sure we all remember hearing about the concept of “indoctrinating the school children at a young age to make it that much more effective?”
ANYONE?
PS: You’re also right that we should move towards a solution and frankly speaking, because of the myriad of factors involved THE ONLY VIABLE solution is to let Quebec go.
The English are (as we witness in fact) ready to let themselves be pushed aside with French first on the montfort hospital even though it is in a predominantly English (96%) English province and Ottawa U, same thing.
But the French fact are too focused on French only so where ever they show up they want to be dominant and thus, with those two verifiable facts It is obvious that…
IT simply CAN’T work unless we are separate.
@ hftt
Well, if quebec really does not want to play in Canada`s sandbox, and they don`t, then why stay
They have made it very clear how they view Canada, and how they want to protect their language in no uncertain terms.
Who are we to stand in their way.
With their own country there would be no need to worry about things like bill 101, bill 14 and any other piece of legislation they wish to have in order to protect french and rid themselves of the terrible Canada that they hate.
quebec could then have NO ENGLISH ANYWHERE ANYTIME’ at work, play on TV MOVIES the whole nine yards, which is what they desire now.
The Canada they hate so much would be gone forever. They could also ban turbans on soccer fields, they could eliminate the word PASTA without the backlash of the world, and everyone would realize what their society stands for.
Intolerance, bigotry, xenaphobia and on and on
Lastly, they can pay for all of it with quebec tax dollars, not Canadian tax dollars
Have a good day eh
Hungry for the Truth…. August 31, 2013 at 11:07 am
Sean August 31, 2013 at 5:15 am
“I certainly support quebec in its quest for separation.”
Hungry wrote,
“I’M SURE YOU DO AND YOU HAVE A SLUE OF FOLLOWERS.”
Which followed with a list that is not important to the point here which is.
PLEASE ADD THESE TO your list of “those who support separation” Hungry…
YOU FORGOT some important folks Hungry for truth (AKA: lives for lies)
These folks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHuQhmzU974&hd=1
ESPECIALLY THIS GROUP (It’s not finished)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMlc18cpx2I&hd=1
(You want out)
We believe in diversity. What a freakin example of doublespeak)
Just as bad as this one.
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-ZweQHEfvbsI/UiFvp46NbmI/AAAAAAAAAxs/BSp0YH4yEOA/w629-h314-no/Imperitif+Francais+-+Doublespeak.png
“A website which encourages freedom of opinion and freedom of expression.”
Uhmm err, yeah, i guess. If that is all this “freedom of expression and opinon” which takes place in French but… duh…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWwejJg5jhQ&hd=1 (bilingualism shouldn’t be necessary)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7G0SCotuwYI&hd=1
(Sing in the language of the colonizers)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMDakVR8oX0&hd=1
(REAL HATE from the French demonstrators)
(and of course, this guy who “pretends” he is there for both sides. Yeah right !! What a joke.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob24XFaAhXw&hd=1
@ hftt
I would think we are in agreement on quebec separating.
You get everything you want. as does stella and trembly.
Your language protected for all eternity. control over your resources, you can then take on the natives and the immigrants who dare display their culture by their mode of dress . You can do as please with all of these grouops. set up your own constitution and do as please. Then no complaints right
No tax payments to Canada, of course, no transfer payments back.
There you go hftt, stella and trembly utopia
Here’s some more historical fun and facts ABOUT CANADA…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYA9882SFCw&hd=1
Mixed in with the sadness of having the Museum of civilization hijacked and build on the wrong side of the river.
Where, as a result, we find all the signs in such a iconic Canadian historical site in FRENCH FIRST.
A site that is supposed to primarily represent ALL of Canada’s history, and yet there is no mention of the battle of the Plains of Abraham. A HUGE part of our our freakin history.
Oh and speaking of which. The government of Quebec (a provincial government no less) refuses to allow Ottawa (the city that is supposed to run this country) to put a statue of the victorious James Wolfe. An icon in Canada’s history and a character that should be celebrated with just as much glory as Champlain, if not more. BUT SADLY isn’t. Why, because this is contentious the French who lost that battle. Is it just me or is there something COMPLETELY INSANELY wrong with this concept?
What about their Franco flag all over this province?
I find those contentious.
What about French first on the name sake university in OttawaU
or the French ONLY Montfort hospital in a province with 96% Anglophone population?
That’s pretty contentious.
Or, the several FRENCH ONLY health care clinics that ALL tax payers are paying for but are only welcoming to French ONLY.
I find those rather contentious.
How is it when the Anglo’s find something contentious it’s no big deal but when the French find something contentious, it’s removed or done away with?
And this is in a country with a majority Anglophone population, for crying out loud.
What is freakin wrong with us Anglo’s?
Won’t we stand up for anything ?
WAKE UP PEOPLE.
TELL YOUR FRIENDS and FAMILY to wake up too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_MG8z_9P6Y&hd=1
HFFT if I could wave a magic wand government services would be provided in English and French based on actual demand. There is technology today that doesn’t require French as a First Language skills for all civil servants in Alberta just like there aren’t English as a First Language skills required for Civil servants in Granby. It makes sense to give linguistic language hiring where populations dictate it. Being bilingual should be a plus. It should not be the deciding factor in promotion or hiring.
And if any Canadian truly can’t handle that then they have a political agenda of some sort that probably isn’t very productive for our wonderful country. Nobody should be treated unfairly over language from Coast to Coast. But this turning of the judicial, military, and government over to French as a First Language testing is just a ruse to socially engineer Canada. It’s wrong.
admin August 31, 2013 at 1:36 pm
“HFFT if I could wave a magic wand government services would be provided in English and French based on actual demand.”
This has been my position when I began posting. The laws may be out of whack but the measuring stick is broken. It’s the policies that create the unfairness.
The present policies are measured and drafted against EXPEXTED DELIVERY of French Language Services based on population. There is no way at present to measure
ACTUAL SERVICE DELIVERY based on ACTUAL USAGE.
In one day 200 patients may go through CCH. How many used French Language Services?
What they can tell you because it’s tracked is what Religion they belong to.
Fix the measuring stick and you fix unfair unrealistic linguistic requirements.
Why have 100% bilingual staff if you only have 5% usage of the
service per shift.
The requirement of the Charter here in Ontario and in all provinces is to have access to French or English Services.
The law does not dictate the amount of bilingual staff.
The same would be true with your example In Granby. If ACTUAL USAGE of ENGLISH SERVICES was only 5% than staffing requirement would be reflective of the ACTUAL USAGE.
Glad we can find some common ground Hungry for the Truth. I wish more people could because then we can all work together to make our worlds better places…
sean August 31, 2013 at 11:24 am
Sean, Highlander, Concerned Citizen2, English Lassie, NPC, David and Jergen!
“If one of your parents attend an English school ,then you may attend an English school from grade one to university.”
Are you done with your games. You may be fooling some but your not fooling me. I see you. Give it up.
I’ve had enough of the scam…. you can moniker with another name all you want I still recognized the BS.
Ask English Lassie or one of the others in your crew to answer your senseless questions. You’ve lost all credibility in my eyes.
Hungry that’s not a defensible position. You shouldn’t need such a certificate to choose which school you want to send your child to. Nor should Francophones not be able to send their children to an English school in Quebec if they so choose.
Could you imagine such a set of rules in Ontario? There would be a huge outcry.
Sean wrote: Well, what if both parents were educated in another country or both were educated in The U.S. Neither of these scenarios allow the parents to choose the language of edcation of their children .
It would benefit the immigrant to learn both official languages of this country. They are told when coming to this country that Canada has two official languages. Refusing to learn both is their choice, however, if one makes the wrong choice, they have no one to blame but themselves. When in Rome…….
admin
August 31, 2013 at 4:13 pm
“Hungry that’s not a defensible position. You shouldn’t need such a certificate to choose which school you want to send your child to. Nor should Francophones not be able to send their children to an English school in Quebec if they so choose.”
Yes, admin.. That right.
This is the kind of stuff that is “supposed to be guaranteed” in our charter and DOES apply to the rest of Canada but our “special little friends” in Quebec who believe they are above everyone else have “not withstanded / brushed it” away.
@ hftt
Thank you sir, for confirming your stance on the English in quebec and in Canada.
When one is unable to defend his or her position with fact based proof, it is THEIR credibility that is lost.
you make these comments as if they were cast in stone, yet you CANNOT defend them with proof . I have referenced many primary and secondary sources for you to go to, however, you provide nothing but rant supposition and ranker
Your silence ( no response to valid questions) has condemned you sir
OH, and have a nice day eh???
Hungry for the Truth…. August 31, 2013 at 3:05 pm
” Sean, Highlander, Concerned Citizen2, English Lassie, NPC, David and Jergen!”
“I’ve had enough of the scam…. you can moniker with another name all you want I still recognized the BS.”
“Ask English Lassie or one of the others in your crew to answer your senseless questions. You’ve lost all credibility in my eyes.”
Hey Hungry Aka lives for lies their all different people and they represent just a small fraction of disenchanted and discriminated population.
You have a hard time understanding this.
And its us that recognise the B.S . That is going on and hence wE speak up against LANGUAGE APARTHEID .
OMG PANIC WE LOST CREDIBILITY IN HUNGRY’S AKA (LFL) EYES OUR WORLD IS CRUMBLING.
AFTER YOUR LAST OBNOXIOUS ,BIASED RANT BLAMING ALL.THE WOES OF THE FRENCH ON THE ENGLISH ,IT IS YOU WHO HAS LOST CREDIBILITY WITH THE READERS.
Unlike you hungry blaming the English for all the French woes I do not blame this LANGUAGE APARTHEID on French people.
I blame French language activist groups and especially the government for implementing unjust,unfair language policies which discriminates against the majority.
Certainly not all.French people agree with LANGUAGE APARTHEID.
admin August 31, 2013 at 4:13 pm
“Hungry that’s not a defensible position. You shouldn’t need such a certificate to choose which school you want to send your child to. Nor should Francophones not be able to send their children to an English school in Quebec if they so choose.”
“Could you imagine such a set of rules in Ontario? There would be a huge outcry.”
Jamie, I know you’re busy and I appreciate you taking time on this issue. Out of accuracy to your claim and your time constraint I’ll keep it short.
You say could I imagine. There is no need to imagine. The rules exists in all 10 provinces and Territories. The only difference is it concerns Access to French Education. Because French is the minority Language in all provinces except Quebec.
In Quebec the Minority Language is English.
French-Language Education in Ontario
Admission to French-language schools
Who is entitled to French-language education in Ontario? (“Rights holders”)
Children whose parents are French-language rights holders are automatically admitted to a French-language school if they submit an application.
Who are rights holders?
Section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms addresses the right to instruction in English or in French of a minority population.
A rights holder is a parent or guardian who lives in Ontario, is a Canadian citizen and meets at least one of the following criteria:
His/her native language is French, that is, the first language learned and still understood; or
He or she has received his or her education at the elementary level in a French-language education institution in Canada; or
He or she is the parent (guardian) of a child who has received or receives his/her education at the elementary or secondary level in a French-language education institution in Canada.
If I am not a rights-holder, can I en-roll my child in a French-
language school?
Individuals who do not meet the above criteria may still submit an application for admission to a French-language school. The application is reviewed by the admission committee at the local school board.
This information is taken from the Ontario Ministry of Education web site. As you can see Jamie there is no major outcry from the French in Ontario. They are the same rules as in Quebec for the minority language.
Hungry I’ll let others flame you on that one. They are not the same at all amigo.
highlander August 31, 2013 at 6:37 pm
“That is going on and hence wE speak up against LANGUAGE APARTHEID”
wE=one
You and only you.
@ HFTT
First of all EDUCATION is a PROVINCIAL MATTER under our constitution.
ALL matters relating to education falls under the individual province.
Therefore it is within THEIR discretion to admit or not admit anyone to any school.
Within Ontario, there are all french school boards and they deal with admissions on an individual basis. To the best of my knowledge there are no restrictions.
But what is the issue here. the Ontario french have open access to their french schooling or English schooling if they prefer, there are NO CERTIFICATES that are issued for language instruction as exists in quebec.
In quebec, certificates must be obtained and proof given to illustrate that the student is permitted to attend an English school.
In Ontario, these certificates do not exist. I am an educator, and I have NEVER EVER heard of any french student being denied entry to any school because of language. if that was the case the french would be the first to yell bloody murder and discrimination to the enth. All can be sure of that. this would be far worse than an outcry.
As well, English parents have the right to educate their children in french if they wish. To my knowledge it is the school board that decides these issues and they DO NOT REQUIRE CERTIFICATES
There are also tons of french immersion schools that English students can make use of to be educated in french.
These schools are growing and are entirely in french and public. Unlike anglos in quebec, they do NOT HAVE TO GO TO private schools to get the education in the language of choice,
BTW: The federal charter may state the right to an English or french education when in a minority, however it is the PROVINCES that apply, set out the regulations and establish criteria of how to apply this.
As previously mentioned EDUCATION falls under provincial power, not federal.
The charter also states we have a right to free speech, however, in what language this is mandated is NOT SPECIFIED. a similar parallel can be drawn regarding education.
Immigrants to quebec, regardless of what country they come from , by law HAVE TO BE EDUCATED IN french. They have NO CHOICE
AS well, in 1970 the number of English high schools on the island of Montreal numbered approx. 20, with the average student population of between 1500 and 2000 +
Today, there are maybe a half dozen high schools, if that, numbering student populations of between 200 ( James Lyng H.S.. ) to 500 max.
Since 1977, the year bill 101 was legislated, there have been over 400,000 Anglos that have left. This is the largest migration of any one city since world war 11. In short it was a purge and ethnic cleaning of Anglos, as a direct result of bill101 and policies and regulations around the restriction, use and displaying of English.
The main reasons were the provisions of bill 101, specifically the
provisions that refer to sign law and especially EDUCATION.
To be educated in English either by the french and especially by the English, was severely restrictive, and made the STATE the sole decision maker of who goes to what school in what language.
So when anyone says that Anglos in quebec have access to an education,, it is in the narrowest of terms and that gap will narrow further as time passes.
There are no such restrictions anywhere else in Canada, nor has an exodus of any like the Montreal exodus ever taken place in any city in the western world because of language, especially the English language. recognized around the world as the most used and accepted language in the world.
Boy,quebec must be really proud of those policies, and they say they are not discriminatory or xenophobic
Naw, don’t think I’ll bother “flaming” Hungry (AKA lives for lies) on that one Admin. It’s inaccuracies are quite evident and speaks for themselves.
Besides, MOST (if not all) of the indiscretions taking place (either against the English or even against the French, to some degree) in — THAT province and under that phony “home made” self aggrandizing constitution of theirs — are acts which are completely indefensible in a true democratic society to begin with.
“They are told when coming to this country that Canada has two official languages. Refusing to learn both is their choice, however, if one makes the wrong choice, they have no one to blame but themselves.”
Stella they are required to learn ONE OF THE 2 OFFICIAL LANGUAGES .
1)-ENGLISH which is internationally know and used in business and the second most utilized language .
2)FRENCH a beautiful language seventh or 8th most spoken language IN THE WORLD and it forced upon Canadians.
what would be your choice for options ?
French is far more in need in Canada because of the artificial inflated need by government then TRUE ACTUAL NEEDS.
HFTT, the same rules or similar? How they are applied would be a university thesis. This story concerns the Quebec rules on language are reducing opportunity for English education in Montreal. http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/08/28/english-school-board-in-montreal-blames-controversial-quebec-language-laws-as-enrolment-hits-all-time-low/
Ontario has 4 boards, English public, English Catholic, French public and French catholic. There are also many who offer immersion, there is a couple of levels for that too, but Ontario has a different problem. Quebec takes care of it’s own immigration, we do not and are left with an over flow of people needing English skills who are in the same classes as kids with English skills.
The amount of money per student, is almost double per French student, and you can see here, the numbers for all of Ontario from JK to grade 8 is about the size of Cornwall and area. Demand and perceived need is another chapter for the university thesis.
http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/educationFacts.html
I echo what Highlander wrote “I blame French language activist groups and especially the government for implementing unjust,unfair language policies which discriminates against the majority.
Certainly not all.French people agree with LANGUAGE APARTHEID.”
Studying history is kind of like reading newspapers. You may have to read a hundred journalists’ articles on a subject before you get to the truth. Other wise all you have is A point of view.
@ Roger
That is called a consensus, and it takes research, work and an understanding of the credibility of the people you are researching.
It takes reading authors on the subject, newspaper accounts , called primary sources and books articles and t.V. documentaries to reach a viable consensus to form a fact based opinion.
Some are easier than others. as well emotion and personal experience can come into play and effect one’s judgement and create a bias that is unfounded in fact.
This is why credible sources and fact checked articles and the like are so important.
I did this for a living sir, and believe me it is difficult, but it can be done and done well.
When people make claims ,it is best to question their claims, and ask where their information came from and was this is information credible, then check it, using a variety of sources.
All newspapers and media outlets do this daily, as well as t.v. documentaries etc. So when people open their mouths, without this type of scrutiny, beware, and take what they say with a grain of salt.
hope this helps.
sean wrote: Immigrants to quebec, regardless of what country they come from , by law HAVE TO BE EDUCATED IN french. They have NO CHOICE
This is Ontario, we really DON’T CARE about Quebec’s educational system. To each their own. If the immigrants don’t like the laws in Quebec, they can go elsewhere, it is their prerogative.
Why should any of the freedom fighters care if people are leaving Quebec? Does it have a personal impact on you? It’s their choice…….WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL?
It is really amusing how you guys think you can change this country and dictate how every province should operate.
Do like galganov, run for elections and see how far you will get with your great ideas……..
sean wrote: It takes reading authors on the subject, newspaper accounts , called primary sources and books articles and t.V. documentaries to reach a viable consensus to form a fact based opinion.
Opinions are just that……whether right or wrong, it is just an opinion.
No one person on the face of the earth has the right or wrong………IT IS AN OPINION.
As for a viable consensus…..fact based or not, doesn’t give one the right to claim their answers are gospel truth.
@ Highlander RE: POST on September 1, 2013 at 4:23 am
“They are told when coming to this country that Canada has two official languages. Refusing to learn both is their choice, however, if one makes the wrong choice, they have no one to blame but themselves.”
Stella they are required to learn ONE OF THE 2 OFFICIAL LANGUAGES .
1)-ENGLISH which is internationally know and used in business and the second most utilized language .
2)FRENCH a beautiful language seventh or 8th most spoken language IN THE WORLD and it is forced upon Canadians.
what would be your choice for options ?
French is far more in need in Canada because of the artificial inflated need by the government then TRUE ACTUAL NEEDS.”
SO WELL SAID Highlander. YESSSS…
@Eric RE: POST on September 1, 2013 at 4:44 am
Good article Eric
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/08/28/english-school-board-in-montreal-blames-controversial-quebec-language-laws-as-enrolment-hits-all-time-low/
and great “digging up stats” work.
I love this line…
“We’re not getting enough new oxygen into our system,” he said.
Uhmm err, is it just me or is it freakin obvious that the French powers that be and Quebec are NOT “supplying enough new oxygen” to this issue (along with not supplying enough new oxygen to many other obvious issues also) in that province simply to either
A) have the English get fed up and leave OR
B) simply and ultimately KILL OFF the English (and other cultures) from lack of oxygen so they can attain their ultimate goal.
A COMPLETELY “pure laine” French society
where then, and ONLY THEN can they allow their version of open use of other languages based on the collective sense that they are finally DOMINANT enough to feel comfortable.
Highlander wrote, “I blame French language activist groups and especially the government for implementing unjust, unfair language policies which discriminates against the majority.
Certainly not all. French people agree with LANGUAGE APARTHEID.”
I echo what Highlander wrote…
However, I add the following caveat.
There are likely FAR MORE back bench supports to bill 101 and it’s intended — and ultimate objectives — which also includes it’s “ultimate and supreme ideal goal” of the French being DOMINANT in this newly minted FRENCH ONLY LAND (Quebec) where the government of Quebec has taken the lead and done it’s part in insuring that despite WHAT ANYONE say’s QUEBEC — IS it’s own SEPARATE COUNTRY and they are collectively ACTING as such while conning the rest of Canada so they can still receive billions as they continue to build up their infrastructure with Canadian tax payers money.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_MG8z_9P6Y&hd=1 (Notice to the government)
Precisely the reason why Francois Legault, the leader of that CAC party said, “let’s wait 10 years and then decide abut a referendum.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcVeGrxwZHg&hd=1 (Legault)
Yeah right, when you read between the lines of this “doublespeak” statement it say’s
— let’s suck 10 more years of money from the host so then the parasite can leave with even more nice schools and highways that it’s host (ah hem, that’s all of us Canadian tax payers OUTSIDE the province of QUEBEC btw) helped pay for —
Last line, “SHOULD MAKE US MUCH RICHER” SAY’S IT ALL, nest pas?
And likely the same reason Marois is spending BILLIONS at a feverish pace — replacing bridges, roads, buildings etc.. Adding new parks and recreation areas and so on with a large share of federal funds even though Quebec is FLAT BROKE and one of THEEE most indebted “countries” in the world right now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tS1BghY0MW4&hd=1 (Debt)
PS: Participating in St Jean day activities proved all of this to me when, on those occasions I went to blend in (as a fellow French “bud”) and have a real listen to what MOST — Fleur de Lys flag waving Quebecers — were saying about Canada AND about the English.
Stella wrote,
“No one person on the face of the earth has the right or wrong………IT IS AN OPINION. ”
2 + 2 =
My opinion is 4
how about you Stella?
oh and, the sky in your world is rosy pink ALL THE TIME.
Have a nice, “some things are JUST simple provable FACTS” kind of day.
stellabystarlight
” Opinions are just that……whether right or wrong, it is just an opinion.
No one person on the face of the earth has the right or wrong………IT IS AN OPINION.
As for a viable consensus…..fact based or not, doesn’t give one the right to claim their answers are gospel truth.”
If this is how you truly feel, why are you so adamant in your pursuit to defame, belittle and insult anyone who’s opinion is different than yours? Why is your opinion the right one? And how can anyone form an opinion of their own without all the facts from all the sides? Why do you feel so threatened by conversations on the internet with differing opinions than yours? What are you so afraid of?