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!
But you don’t respect anyone! That’s the thing! You blow in here all full of bluster and “truth”, to save all the peons from themselves and their misguided ways. Look at the way you went after Pastor Tom. And you say edud is ranty? pfft!! You are surprised we don’t all bow down and change our opinions to yours and you get offended when we attempt to show you a side that might differ from yours. Perhaps the whole ‘flies and honey’ adage would suit you better than ‘take no prisoners’ attitude you came in with.
~
“And I do not say any where bella that my rights are more imporatant. They are just as EQUAL. ”
No you seem to want equal rights plus some. You say we should just settle down and go with the flow, and yet you applaud Michel and Lynda Thibodeau who filed eight complaints with the official languages commissioner over the English-only services they say they received from Air Canada during trips taken between January and May, 2009.
Hungry for the Truth….
September 4, 2013 at 2:11 pm
Oh bill 14 will pass CAQ (you know the other separatist party),which makes up 58% of the votes with the PQ.
CAQ wants this bill with a few amendments ,there are 156 amendments to bill 101 with this bill.
This bill will pass then what ?disagree with it then ?
It a very oppressive bill that easily could be considered discriminatory.
Do you think Ontario should come up with the same laws -limiting french use such as …telling french people that they are not to talk french in the workplace .
Limiting their education of choice.
English twice the size of french -or the tongue troopers will get you!
ALL workplaces with over 25 must not have a choice but operate in English mandated by the government.
You see the list goes on and on !
You or I would not find that except-able to do that in Ontario ,why should it be excepted in Quebec.?-These similar policies are being advocated by francophone groups on this side of the border.
The only solution is this if Quebec is not willing to except institutional bilingualism why should the rest of Canada do so for Quebec?
Hungry for the Truth (AKA: Lives for Lies) wrote,
“Bill 14 is not destined to be implemented.
The process is clear. At this point given the Government does not wish not to continue the legislative process it’s dead and should be filled under does not exist.
A bill is a proposed law under consideration by a legislature. A bill does not become law until it has passed through the legislative process. Once a bill has been enacted into law, it is called an act or a statute.
It has no credibility of truth and validity of FACTUAL LAW.”
————-
This may very be a valid statement HFFT (AKA: LFL) BUT, it certainly speaks VERY LOUDLY
TO INTENT —
The intent of what the PQ government (and I believe in a broader sense, a large number of the French nationalists in Quebec) wishes to do with regard to further diminishing the rights of the English citizens and the English language in that province.
THAT, I am sure – most honest, clear thinking people would agree is purely
UNDENIABLE FACT.
And thus, is all one really needs to know with regard to “the reality” of the style of negativeness that is both being perpetuated and proposed AGAINST the Canadian Anglophone citizens in the province of Quebec in this time of our lord, the year two thousand thirteen.
But, don’t let that keep you from having a nice,
“let’s not think about it as it’s not really a reflection of how we think of, and treat, the English in Quebec unless the law get’s passed”
kinda of day eh 🙂
ON September 4, 2013 at 9:49 am
Hungry for the Truth…. wrote: “ When you see a horse you say “There’s a Horse” When you see a dog” you say “There’s a dog” when you read comments like these you say,
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.
Sean August 31, 2013 at 5:15 am
“I certainly support quebec in its quest for separation.”
“These people support the break-up this Country”
What you say Highlander is correct that you have not seen comments from the French Separatist posted here. I for one am not Separatist, so I would find it difficult to comment in favour of the Separation of Quebec and the split up of Canada.
——————-
Speaking for myself. I grew up in Quebec and for the longest time I wanted my country to stay together. I even went to rally in 1995 to basically beg the Quebec people to vote no and stay in Canada BUT… BUT… BUT…
Did you catch the — BUT — there?
Since that time Quebec and MANY OF THE French nationalist have done NOTHING BUT demand, and take, and demand more, and take more
http://youtu.be/3kNcFyBofC4?t=18s
while at the same time doing everything to diminish the English language and what little respect that had existed in that province for the English Canadian citizens that live there.
AND NOW –
It is — BECAUSE of ALL OF THAT — which took place — SINCE — 1995 and how the French and Quebec are treating this situation as to — WHY — I (and I believe MANY Anglophones feel this exact same way FOR THE EXACT same reasons) NOW COMPLETELY BELIEVE we should be separate and be two countries.
Not to mention there are many on “your side” that believe this too and frankly I believe their reasoning is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT and applies to BOTH sides of this situation..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9Yh5yikJ08&hd=1
THAT, added to the fact that the PQ is now blatantly calling Quebec a country while at the same time taking money from the rest of Canada as if they are still a province.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SMIpA2vA8k&hd=1
http://youtu.be/o_MG8z_9P6Y?t=35s
THIS IS — TOTALLY NOT ACCEPTABLE — TO US CANADIAN TAX PAYERS.
WE CAN NO LONGER STAND FOR THIS blatant style that the French have of laughing right in our faces while they demand more and more.
Quebec is either a province or a country
IT CAN NO LONGER ACT LIKE ONE WHILE RECEIVING CANADIAN CASH
as if it is the other.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvyifj557p8&hd=1
bella September 4, 2013 at 3:04 pm
Glad I can help
bella September 4, 2013 at 3:04 pm
“You say we should just settle down and go with the flow, and yet you applaud Michel and Lynda Thibodeau who filed eight complaints with the official languages commissioner over the English-only services they say they received from Air Canada during trips taken between January and May, 2009.”
You must be mistaken me for someone else. When did I say you should go with the flow? I never once ever posted about this. Again as is your case of falsely accusing. As for my post about Newton. If you give yourself the right to take a swipe at the French over traffic signs because you feel adamant and fell that your justified to take a swipe at me because my beliefs seems to offend you, what’s the different with me disagreeing with you or Newton. I do have the right to defend what I believe is harmful and destructive rhetoric. And by the way I did not go after Newton I disagreed with his religious rhetoric. Big difference. And you will also notice that I wasn’t alone to disagree with his
TRUTH. You can bow now if you wish.
Help? What help? Educating the masses with your propaganda, lies and entitlement? Thanks ever so much. pffft!
~
Have you no opinion on Michel and Lynda Thibodeau? Is it only the French that can complain of language woes?
hungry a few questions I asked you before:Highlander September 4, 2013 at 3:34 pm
Do you think Ontario should come up with the same laws -limiting french use such as …telling french people that they are not to talk french in the workplace .
Limiting their education of choice.
English twice the size of french -or the tongue troopers will get you!
ALL workplaces with over 25 must not have a choice but operate in English mandated by the government.
You see the list goes on and on !
You or I would not find that except-able to do that in Ontario ,why should it be excepted in Quebec.?-These similar policies are being advocated by francophone groups on this side of the border.
Do you think Ontario should implement the same language laws as Quebec and limit French?
If its not exceptable in Ontario ,why should it be excepted in Quebec?
Bow for what? Your wind bagginess? *snort*
Again I see you refuse to acknowledge Michel and Lynda Thibodeau, and the tragic case of the sprite/7up debacle.
~
Because I had an opinion about informational traffic advisory signs on the TransCanada Highway in the province of Quebec, you had the right to attack Pastor Tom? Oh hungry, that’s some fancy logic you’ve got there.
bella September 5, 2013 at 6:49 am
“Again I see you refuse to acknowledge Michel and Lynda Thibodeau, and the tragic case of the sprite/7up debacle.”
Again I see you refuse to acknowledge that I have already answered your question. I never once ever posted about this. I did not have an opinion then and not now. You’ll have to debate your trivia with some one that thinks it’s significant.
“Because I had an opinion about informational traffic advisory signs on the TransCanada Highway in the province of Quebec, you had the right to attack Pastor Tom? Oh hungry, that’s some fancy logic you’ve got there.”
Because I had an opinion about ancient religious rhetoric that is causing harm in this world, you had the wright to attack the French in the Province of Quebec about advisory signs. Oh
bella, that’s some fancy logic you’ve got there.
In defending an Idea or belief it’s not personal. I attack no one.
The Message not the messenger.
Hope this helps.
Hungry for the Truth….
September 5, 2013 at 9:22 am
Hey hungry you did not answer these questions.
Do you think Ontario should implement the same language laws as Quebec and limit French?
If its not exceptable in Ontario ,why should it be excepted in Quebec?
Sorry Highlander, He won’t answer unless the it backs up his opinions, otherwise it is not worth his time. He wouldn’t want to tarnish his superior record of truthiness.
By the way hungry, I looked for your response to the Thibodeau matter and was unable to find it. Please point me to the article and post. This would be the helpfulness you were hoping to pass on.
bella
September 6, 2013 at 5:33 am
“He wouldn’t want to tarnish his superior record of truthiness.”
Superior record OMG LOL that was good bella -well the folks here know the reality of his many errors.
Hungry still waiting on answering those questions ,I guess it will take another 12 days .
Its was never a problem writing with the spewing of English hate such as on Aug 30th.
Hungry want to advise you the people you call English,may not necessarily be Englishmen but the 200 other cultures that happen to speak English .
Just because the Haitian speaks French that does not denote they come from French heritage.
But once again when often the the debate issues: its us against them (French against English).
To us it the government that’s the problem and legislating unfair policies ,its the government through these policies Federal or Provincial that creates division…….If all were to be fair we wouldn’t have legislated language laws.
TO: ALL
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-TmS7B4T_L6M/UHhV5li6k2I/AAAAAAAAAp8/NTd7LEZUBBU/w1357-h457-no/Bus+Rider+Demands+French.jpg (Thibideau – Bus)
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-oihVCj-ZuOY/UHhVJFeqUiI/AAAAAAAAAFQ/gOAluA9MECw/w750-h814-no/A+12000+7up+-+Mon+Dieu+02..jpg (Thidideau – Airplane)
And, the contrast or flip side.
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-RWlH7ht-lIs/UinZNpOOo1I/AAAAAAAAAy4/AnKwGELc3xA/w577-h813-no/STM+Bus+Driver+refuses+to+speak+English+02.bmp (Montreal English bus rider)
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-A8pHCX5u0Yc/UHhYlj7YskI/AAAAAAAAAJM/wKRRRHPuKvw/w603-h567-no/French+Rockland.jpg (Rockland)
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-UmgF1vdaDj4/UHhY65W22NI/AAAAAAAAAJc/bLZjpRSFWPk/w877-h814-no/French+ticket.jpg (Ticket)
How can a group expect respect when they not only DO NOT OFFER ANY in return themselves but, they are so blatant in the MANNER in which THEY DON’T OFFER IT.
It’s the same with the construction industry and taxi drivers.
Quebec has put ALL KINDS of restrictions on construction people from Ontario who wish to work in Quebec. They harass them and the taxi drivers with fines and inspections every time they see one come across the bridges into Quebec.
But, the French contractors and taxi drivers get a free ride in Ontario Come right in, and THEY DO. They make up approximately 70-90% of the contractors working in the province of Ontario in many cases and on many job sites.
And we can’t blame the individuals because that’s the way the laws and so on are set up BUT, the whole thing reeks of entitlement and arrogance.
We are not being treated fairly in this country…..HORRENDOUS IS WHAT IT IS.
CHANGE IS COMING ………I am so very excited.
Who cares if the world may be facing war, we must fight for our language rights. Nuclear weapons or sarin attacks are not as threatening as language issues.
People are waking up…..oh my goodness!!!! Just the thought of it gives me hope for a better world. A world where the English freedom fighters rule, dictate, control and protect all Canadians. IMAGINE WE WILL FINALLY LIVE IN PEACE AND HARMONY IN A COUNTRY OF BROTHERLY LOVE!!!!
CANADA THE LAND OF THE FREE
LET”S KEEP IT THAT WAY!!!!!!
DON’T LET A SMALL GROUP
SWAY YOU TO THINK OTHERWISE.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvyifj557p8&hd=1
http://youtu.be/3kNcFyBofC4?t=17s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydasumUEKAg&hd=1
CANADA THE LAND WITH A PROVINCE THAT IS NOT FREE
LET”S NOT KEEP IT THAT WAY!!!!!!
DON’T LET A SMALL GROUP
SWAY YOU TO THINK OTHERWISE.
Here’s another little turd in the sandbox for everyone’s amusement. Not meant to offend… just to put things in perspective.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buqtdpuZxvk
Or perhaps a maybe as someone once put it,
“a pickle in the pooh….” for all those “deep thinkers” out there.
Of course, also not meant to offend.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGSJCDw3ZBw&hd=1
stellabystarlight September 6, 2013 at 12:23 pm
CANADA THE LAND OF THE FREE LET”S KEEP IT THAT WAY!!!!!! DON’T LET A SMALL GROUP SWAY YOU TO THINK OTHERWISE.
REMEMBER FOLKS: she easily ridicules a group that wants equality and claims them attempting to separate a country.
Yet never has there been a negative comment in going on 3years directed at the separatists “the true group” trying to separate the country.
Think of that folks, a wolf in sheeps clothing.
Many dispute and prefer ignoring the history of the struggles and survival of the French Canadian language and culture. Almost as if it never happened, they argue the present as if there was no evidence in history that demonstrates discriminating laws against French Canadians.
Before some fanatics claim that I’m blaming English Canadians, I’m simply re-counting historical factual laws that have become part of our history. This happened. You may want to deny it or blame the Americans or the Chinese or the french themselves it does not change the FACTS. These laws where legislated against The French-Speaking Canadians.
1916 – Province of Manitoba: The Thornton Act, by abolishing bilingual schools, completely ends the teaching of French in the province.
1912 – Province of Ontario: Circular of Instructions Regulation No. 17 and No. 18. Forbids the teaching of French above the first two grades of elementary school.
1890 – Province of Manitoba: Official Language Act banning French, formerly an official language in the province. Conservative Premier Greenway diminishes the rights to French school, abolishes its use in the Parliament and in the Courts of the province. The act was declared anti-constitutional
and discriminatory some 90 years later!
1877 – Province of Prince-Edward-Island: The Public School Act puts an end to the teaching of French in schools.
1871 – Province of New Brunswick: The Common School Act imposes double taxation measures against French Catholic schools.
1864 – Province of Nova Scotia: The act on public schools suppresses all subsidies to Catholic and French language schools.
1840 – Act of the British Parliament, passed July 1840 and proclaimed 10 February 1841, uniting UPPER CANADA and LOWER CANADA under one government. The main provisions were the establishment of a single parliament with equal representation from each constituent section. Consolidation of debt, a permanent Civil List, banishment of the French language from official government use and suspension of specific French Canadian institutions relating to education and civil law, was the main provisions of the Act. In fact, the Act was unfair to Lower Canada with its larger population and smaller debt.
In July 1912, the Conservative government of Sir James P. Whitney issued Regulation 17 which severely limited the availability of French-language schooling to the province’s French-speaking minority. French could only be used in the first two years of schooling, and then only English was allowed. The French-Canadian population, which was growing rapidly in eastern Ontario from migration, reacted with outrage; journalist Henri Bourassa denounced the efforts of Ontario. It was
one of the key reasons the Francophones turned away from the war effort in 1915 and refused to enlist. Ontario’s English Catholics were led by the Irish, who united with the Protestants in opposing French schools. Regulation 17 was repealed in 1927. The discrimination against French-speaking Canadian’s in Ontario lasted 15 years.
Today, Ontario has The French Language Service Act and there is an uproar of claims how this is discrimination. I have said it before and I will say it agian. Laws just don’t happen for fun. They have usually garnered majority support from legislators to act in the the perceived unfairness or injustice.
I have also said in this case, it’s not the Law that is broken. It’s the application of the Act that is unfairlly being measured against a broken and unrealisitic measuring formula.
Allowing that the French-speaking Ontarian’s have minority language rights protected is not the problem. It’s how policies are drafted that create the unfairness.
One issue at a time. I already know some of you will refer to Quebec.
Now we are talking about Ontario and historical discriminatory laws towards French-speaking Canadians living in Ontario.
@HFTT….Very interesting indeed.
HFTT wrote: Now we are talking about Ontario and historical discriminatory laws towards French-speaking Canadians living in Ontario.
Yes HFTT, that should be the main concern……Ontario.
The fixation is Quebec. That speaks volumes about their true agenda.
ON September 7, 2013 at 11:17 am Hungry for the Truth wrote,
“Many dispute and prefer ignoring the history — of the struggles and survival of the French Canadian language and culture. Almost as if it never happened, they argue the present as if there was no evidence in history that demonstrates discriminating laws against French Canadians.”
Oh… I get it Hungry. You mean sort of like how the French powers that be like to ignore the battle which caused France to sign the declaration which handed — ALL OF CANADA — over to the British, “almost as if it didn’t happen” and jump straight to the other agreements that occurred much later which had the British showing how they were fair and accommodating to those French peasants who remained on the land that was actually — NO LONGER THEIR LAND — after they were abandoned by their own country — France — . OK, gotcha.
Hungry for the truth (AKA: Lives for lies) wrote, “I have said it before and I will say it agian. Laws just don’t happen for fun. They have usually garnered majority support from legislators to act in the the perceived unfairness or injustice.”
Yeah right!! That’s almost the same upside down backwards logic of those who are “trying” to defend the VERY unpatriotic patriot act — LAW — in the U.S.A.
The reality is, many laws are a result of either a party leader who wants to push through his own selfish agenda —
(humm, that sounds familiar. Pierre Elliot Trudeau ring a bell to anyone?)
— or, are a collective mindset of a particular party that has a particular view of the world and how it should be legislated and how they want to put “their partisan stamp” on things.
besides, many of those 18th / 19th century laws you point out were removed because humanity progressed, grew up and modernized.
Doesn’t say much for the French powers that be and Quebec RIGHT NOW for passing these same kinds of backward laws after the fact, DOES IT?
Hungry wrote, “I have also said in this case, it’s not the Law that is broken. It’s the application of the Act that is unfairlly being measured against a broken and unrealisitic measuring formula. ”
Partially true but this whole thing is based on “a mind set” that the — French powers that be have had for decades — about wanting to
“do_da_big_je_me_souviens_pay back_ting” in retaliation for SOME “imagined elements” and SOME – “just the way things were in that era – elements” that — just were — because of the time period we are dealing with before people started being more fair and civilized.
You know, sort of where your mind is locked in when you speak of the English.
— 1812 instead of where it should be 1759 😉
Oh, and I guess we now see the results of the English realizing how unfair those laws were and rescinding them while “trying” to be accommodating and fair with the French eh?
Yup, as soon as they put the guard down and began the process of “trying” to be fair and just to the French, what did the French turn around and do?
If you are in need of an answer to that one Hungry just look at the anti English laws in Quebec which are passed under the “imagined” pretence that their language and culture was threatened. Bzzzzttt…
Sure, both parties had their faults (considering the era, there’s no doubt) but ya know what the kicker is — in today’s times — Hungry? Yes, the kicker is ONE group (I am sure you guessed which one — that’s right, THE VICTORIOUS English) went in one direction and ultimately set the stage to at least TRY to accommodate and implement things to appease and satisfy the French over the last several decades in an attempt to try to have it so we could all live in peace and harmony. (hey Stella, this is — the REAL context – where this should be used not your backwards made up one)
But then we had the other group (yes, you know who that is (yes, THE DEFEATED French) who went in exactly the opposite direction and took advantage of every ounce of good nature that the English attempted. They actually took advantage at just about the very moment that each good deed was done too.
In retrospect, you can probably tell which group deserves the respect eh? Yes, that’s right. The group that was victorious and had the chance to COMPLETELY annihilate the other group into NOTHING — but they didn’t —
And ya know. Knowing what we all have come to know and see about the French character. It would probably be a safe bet to say that if things had been the other way round. The French would NOT HAVE been so gracious in the winners circle and likely would not have allowed the British / English remnants to have even one tenth of what the British allowed the French to have.
Just using the province (not country –yet-) of Quebec as the example, imagine a ruling French allowing one half of all products in the country they RULE to be completely ENGLISH in the same letter size n all?
Yeah right? Something the English did even though the total defeated French population of ALL OF CANADA at that time was ONLY about 2% maybe 3%.
And yes, the English, in trying to be fair, nice and accommodating are indeed at fault to some degree in this. But, now that the true character of the French is evident and has been recognized, there really is only one thing left to do.
And that is, to bid you and all the French who choose to go live in da newly to be formed — NATION DE QUEBEC – a happy “Pauline Marois as queen” kind of day eh 🙂
PS: There is only one clan that has “an agenda” in all of this. The rest are simply trying to keep it resigned to ONE PROVINCE.
So is that to say two wrongs make a right? The pendulum has swung now far to the other side without abatement.
The Government nor certain interest groups want to bring it towards the center.
There is a difference in providing a language service to limiting ones career opportunities because of language .
Regulation 17 may have existed on the books for 15 years .
Bill 101 and its previous language bills and now proposed bill 14 have now been 42 years with no indication on the horizan of it ever being eliminated like regulation 17.
Hungry ,
You still did not answer these questions.
Do you think Ontario should implement the same language laws as Quebec and limit French?
If its not exceptable in Ontario ,why should it be excepted in Quebec?
@ Stella. Yup. And it wasn’t just in Ontario. There was an upstart Francophone (Métis) leader in Manitoba, Louis Riel, who got his neck stretched in Ottawa in 1885 because he stood up for Francophone rights.
And the beat goes on….
Correction: Louis Riel was hanged in Regina.
highlander September 7, 2013 at 6:10 pm
“Hungry ,
You still did not answer these questions.
Do you think Ontario should implement the same language laws as Quebec and limit French?
If its not exceptable in Ontario ,why should it be excepted in Quebec?”
You’re doing the same thing as before taunting me with your
insistence. Can I just say no I do not wish to answer.
That is my answer.
Thank-You maybe someone else has an answer.
highlander September 7, 2013 at 6:06 pm
“There is a difference in providing a language service to limiting ones career opportunities because of language .”
It is not the ACT that limmits opportunities.
I have also said in this case, it’s not the Law that is broken. It’s the application of the Act that is unfairlly being measured against a broken and unrealisitic measuring formula.
Allowing that the French-speaking Ontarian’s have minority language rights protected is not the problem. It’s how policies are drafted that create the unfairness.
.
“Regulation 17 may have existed on the books for 15 years .
Bill 101 and its previous language bills and now proposed bill 14 have now been 42 years with no indication on the horizan of it ever being eliminated like regulation 17.”
The context are not the same at all. Bill 101 was introduced to correct historical unfairness.
Regulation 17 was introduced to abolish French in Ontario.
Bill 14 is filled under dead, Does not exist.
Hungry for the Truth….
September 7, 2013 at 7:35 pm
“You’re doing the same thing as before taunting me with your
insistence. Can I just say no I do not wish to answer.
That is my answer”
Well Hungry you are willing to comment on all other issues ,but not this one !
Why! Are you pleading the fifth as they say say in the United States for it may incriminate you?
These are very valid questions:
Do you think Ontario should implement the same language laws as Quebec and limit French?
If its not exceptable in Ontario ,why should it be excepted in Quebec?
With all the wisdom that you try to imply that you have and the written diarrhea that you display …..you are all of a sudden quiet when questions of relevancy come into play ….you say” Can I just say no I do not wish to answer.
That is my answer. ”
That speaks volumes for our readers ,So its exceptable to oppress one population but not another…..your bias is showing .
Should not all people be treated the same? Or as Orwellian perspective some are more equal then others?
Your silence says it all … the readers are not that stupid as you assume …it remains their choice! If they choose to remain informed they will know the reality.
Highlander September 7, 2013 at 8:32 pm
.
“With all the wisdom that you try to imply that you have and the written diarrhea that you display ….”
edudyorlik September 7, 2013 at 6:00 pm
ON September 7, 2013 at 11:17 am Hungry for the Truth wrote,
“Many dispute and prefer ignoring the history — of the struggles and survival of the French Canadian language and culture. Almost as if it never happened, they argue the present as if there was no evidence in history that demonstrates discriminating laws against French Canadians.”
Oh… I get it Hungry. You mean sort of like how the French powers that be like to ignore the battle which caused France to sign the declaration which handed — ALL OF CANADA — over to the British, “almost as if it didn’t happen” and jump straight to the other agreements that occurred much later which had the British showing how they were fair and accommodating to those French peasants who remained on the land that was actually — NO LONGER THEIR LAND — after they were abandoned by their own country — France — . OK, gotcha.
Hungry for the truth (AKA: Lives for lies) wrote, “I have said it before and I will say it agian. Laws just don’t happen for fun. They have usually garnered majority support from legislators to act in the the perceived unfairness or injustice.”
Yeah right!! That’s almost the same upside down backwards logic of those who are “trying” to defend the VERY unpatriotic patriot act — LAW — in the U.S.A.
The reality is, many laws are a result of either a party leader who wants to push through his own selfish agenda —
(humm, that sounds familiar. Pierre Elliot Trudeau ring a bell to anyone?)
– or, are a collective mindset of a particular party that has a particular view of the world and how it should be legislated and how they want to put “their partisan stamp” on things.
besides, many of those 18th / 19th century laws you point out were removed because humanity progressed, grew up and modernized.
Doesn’t say much for the French powers that be and Quebec RIGHT NOW for passing these same kinds of backward laws after the fact, DOES IT?
Hungry wrote, “I have also said in this case, it’s not the Law that is broken. It’s the application of the Act that is unfairlly being measured against a broken and unrealisitic measuring formula. ”
Partially true but this whole thing is based on “a mind set” that the — French powers that be have had for decades — about wanting to
“do_da_big_je_me_souviens_pay back_ting” in retaliation for SOME “imagined elements” and SOME – “just the way things were in that era – elements” that — just were — because of the time period we are dealing with before people started being more fair and civilized.
You know, sort of where your mind is locked in when you speak of the English.
– 1812 instead of where it should be 1759
Oh, and I guess we now see the results of the English realizing how unfair those laws were and rescinding them while “trying” to be accommodating and fair with the French eh?
Yup, as soon as they put the guard down and began the process of “trying” to be fair and just to the French, what did the French turn around and do?
If you are in need of an answer to that one Hungry just look at the anti English laws in Quebec which are passed under the “imagined” pretence that their language and culture was threatened. Bzzzzttt…
Sure, both parties had their faults (considering the era, there’s no doubt) but ya know what the kicker is — in today’s times — Hungry? Yes, the kicker is ONE group (I am sure you guessed which one — that’s right, THE VICTORIOUS English) went in one direction and ultimately set the stage to at least TRY to accommodate and implement things to appease and satisfy the French over the last several decades in an attempt to try to have it so we could all live in peace and harmony. (hey Stella, this is — the REAL context – where this should be used not your backwards made up one)
But then we had the other group (yes, you know who that is (yes, THE DEFEATED French) who went in exactly the opposite direction and took advantage of every ounce of good nature that the English attempted. They actually took advantage at just about the very moment that each good deed was done too.
In retrospect, you can probably tell which group deserves the respect eh? Yes, that’s right. The group that was victorious and had the chance to COMPLETELY annihilate the other group into NOTHING — but they didn’t —
And ya know. Knowing what we all have come to know and see about the French character. It would probably be a safe bet to say that if things had been the other way round. The French would NOT HAVE been so gracious in the winners circle and likely would not have allowed the British / English remnants to have even one tenth of what the British allowed the French to have.
Just using the province (not country –yet-) of Quebec as the example, imagine a ruling French allowing one half of all products in the country they RULE to be completely ENGLISH in the same letter size n all?
Yeah right? Something the English did even though the total defeated French population of ALL OF CANADA at that time was ONLY about 2% maybe 3%.
And yes, the English, in trying to be fair, nice and accommodating are indeed at fault to some degree in this. But, now that the true character of the French is evident and has been recognized, there really is only one thing left to do.
And that is, to bid you and all the French who choose to go live in da newly to be formed — NATION DE QUEBEC – a happy “Pauline Marois as queen” kind of day eh
PS: There is only one clan that has “an agenda” in all of this. The rest are simply trying to keep it resigned to ONE PROVINCE
Regulation 17 was 100 years ago, today is not then, and 1913 standards can be noted in this –
http://www.slmc.uottawa.ca/?q=leg_regulation_17
But just like in 1968’s government of the day, I question the actual need for separate buildings and services for the French population. That just creates the perception of unfairness, divisiveness and it is expensive.
Just a reminder, this Ontario government website lists English as THE official language .http://www.ontario.ca/government/about-ontario
Ontario’s languages
English is Ontario’s official language, though there are several French-speaking communities across the province. French language rights have been extended to the province’s legal and educational systems. Government services are provided in English and French in many designated regions across the province.
Ontario’s population growth has depended on immigration ever since the American Revolution sent Loyalists north to Canada. Even today, 40 % of the approximately 250,000 people who immigrate to Canada each year choose to settle in Ontario. Toronto has been called the most multicultural city in the world, where more than 100 languages and dialects are spoken.
Languages other than English often spoken at home in Ontario include Chinese, Italian, German, Polish, Spanish, Punjabi, Ukrainian and Portuguese.
Furtz, are you sure it was language rights causing a hanging? I thought it was because of murder…. http://library.usask.ca/northwest/background/riel.htm
An execution that had more to do with a love triangle than language.
I hope your post at 648 is not implying anything……
Riel was tried and hanged for treason.
Eric September 8, 2013 at 4:52 am
“Regulation 17 was 100 years ago, today is not then, and 1913 standards can be noted in this -”
It was over 100 years ago. The point is not that it was over 100 years ago. The point is that French Canadians have always had to fight for their rights. Today what has changed?
The French are still having to fight for equal right. And they stand to protect their rights and are told that they are discriminating against the English Canadians. What has Changed?
As I’ve said in my post, Laws just don’t happen for the fun of it. In the 60’s every one drove a car while intoxicated. After groups of citizens stood up and demanded protection from such an irresponsible act, we now have laws against it to protect the lives of the innocent.
Why is so difficult to accept the French Canadian’s wish to protect their right and culture by enacting Laws that will prevent further discrimination that history demonstrates.
How is Bill 101 any different than Ontario’s English Only. Where do the French in Ontario stand?
“ That speaks volumes for our readers ,So its exceptable to oppress one population but not another…..your bias is showing .” Highlander September 7, 2013 at 8:32 pm
Why do you see the French minority in Ontario treatment as right when the argument is that the English minority of Quebec is discriminated against. How about the French in Ontario?
“Just a reminder, this Ontario government website lists English as THE official language”
This makes the point. What has changed? English is the official language. What has Changed?
“Languages other than English often spoken at home in Ontario include Chinese, Italian, German, Polish, Spanish, Punjabi, Ukrainian and Portuguese.”
For the record Toronto has 150 languages with 9-1-1 Services. Costing the tax payers 28-30% more monies to provide this service than any other city in Canada.
Hungry for the truth (AKA:Lives for lies) in attempting to refute this
statement by highlander “Regulation 17 may have existed on the books for 15 years. Bill 101 and its previous language bills and now proposed bill 14 have now been 42 years with no indication on the horizan of it ever being eliminated like regulation 17.”
wrote, “The context are not the same at all. Bill 101 was introduced to correct historical unfairness.
Regulation 17 was introduced to abolish French in Ontario.”
And there YOU HAVE IT PEOPLE.
This truly proves that people like this hungry for truth (AKA: Lives for lies) are so programmed that they actually DO NOT SEE how laws like bill 101 are indeed intended to “cleanse” or indeed “abolish” the nasty English people and their totally disrespected — English — language from the province of Quebec.
Which btw, English only happens to be the uhhm freakin main and common language of the very country this province of Quebec resides in (and also depends on for cash infusions to be able to afford it’s own existence,)
Oh and incidentally. There are now going around blatantly calling that “province” of Quebec — a country —
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SMIpA2vA8k&hd=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_565003455&feature=iv&hd=1&src_vid=5SMIpA2vA8k&v=o_MG8z_9P6Y#t=34s
while at the very same instant in time they have NO PROBLEM accepting BILLIONS in transfer and equalization payments from — Canada — as if they are “a province.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1_NjmbbVHo&hd=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvyifj557p8&hd=1
———————–
Hungry also wrote, “Bill 14 is filled under dead, Does not exist.”
Yeah, imagine that. The PQ and the “French powers that be” while saying they are going to abandon bill 14 were at the very same moment saying, “It won’t stop us from working on the language front, however.”
which is code for … don’t worry we’ll figure out OTHER WAYS to do away with — and screw — the English people and language in their own COUNTRY.
And this will also allow us to, “press ahead with the secularism bill, the so-called Charter of Quebec values.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/08/29/bill-14-pq-government-ma_n_3840151.html
Can’t wait till that gets tabled. Oh lovely…
What a lovely bunch of coconuts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-mdNPlKKsg&hd=1
Highlander September 7, 2013 at 8:32 pm
“Well Hungry you are willing to comment on all other issues ,but not this one !”
Well highlander, why do you post in this forum?
Because it’s you choice. Why is it so difficult to allow me the same freedom of choice of not wanting to answer a question, without your badgering implications.
“Your silence says it all … the readers are not that stupid as you assume …it remains their choice! If they choose to remain informed they will know the reality.”
I’m excessively comfortable of letting the readers choice decide. They are intelligent. They will surely discern a reoccurring pattern that you have used before when you want to badger me.
This is an interesting piece of News. And we think that our Canadian Laws are invasive and discriminatory. Imagine this is not the Language Police. This is the Pee Police.
By Ed Flanagan, Producer, NBC News (excerpt)
BEIJING – An entrepreneur in the southern Chinese city of Shenzhen has unveiled a contraption designed to help those who miss the mark at a urinal: the ‘Pee Straight.’
The invention came in the wake of a new law known as the Shenzhen City Public Toilet Management Act, which allows sanitation managers and other officials to slap a $15 fine on those caught making a mess of municipal toilets while relieving themselves. The law also cracks down on anybody defacing, littering or smoking in public privies.
Geez hungry I thought these questions all our readers and Canadians as a whole would like to know.
Do you think Ontario should implement the same language laws as Quebec and limit French?
If its not exceptable in Ontario ,why should it be excepted in Quebec?
They are very simple questions ,but now all of the sudden you remain quiet this is so unlike you (now you readers take note of this)…somebody cue the crickets……its not often hungry remains quiet and there is a good reason ….but I do not need to tell you fine folks what that reason is…..
HFTT said “Why is so difficult to accept the French Canadian’s wish to protect their right and culture by enacting Laws that will prevent further discrimination that history demonstrates.”
Few of us I imagine have a problem with French or any other Canadians trying to protect rights and culture.
The problem is enacting laws that discriminate (selective hiring)against the majority or other minorities.
The problem is government not reviewing laws that were in place 40 plus years ago to see if they are needed, are working, or are discriminating in some fashion.
The problems are costing billions of dollars that can be used elsewhere for everyone. Ontario pays about 10 billion a year in interest because of borrowing, it would great to have that in health care, they just need to readjust priorities.
It is not to much to ask for an unbiased review, what is working, what needs to be changed, what is not working, is one group benefiting more than others. Yes HFTT, laws change to reflect current life, overly protecting Francophones is something that should change to be brought in line with actual needs!
What rights are Francophones not getting now?
HFTT, I do not know what purpose your comment makes, “An entrepreneur in the southern Chinese city of Shenzhen has unveiled a contraption designed to help those who miss the mark at a urinal: the ‘Pee Straight.’”
But if it is some kind of p!$$!ng match, pun intended, here is some gender fairness a little closer to home.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/09/06/solutions-to-the-lines-outside-womens-bathrooms-urine-spouts-3-to-1-toilet-ratios-and-unisex-facilites/
eric wrote: What rights are Francophones not getting now?
Who ever said anything about Francophones not getting rights. We get what we deserve, no more, no less then any other Canadian.
highlander wrote: Do you think Ontario should implement the same language laws as Quebec and limit French?
Why should they? We have no problems with language in ONTARIO…….that is until galganov and his freedom fighters stuck their nose where it didn’t belong.
Your question should be: Do you think Ontario freedom fighters should have the right to tell another province what laws should and should not be implemented? The answer is a RESOUNDING NO.
If the gang is not happy, do like galganov, run for office…..SEE HOW FAR YOU WILL GET WITH THAT.
bella
September 6, 2013 at 5:33 am
By the way hungry, I looked for your response to the Thibodeau matter and was unable to find it. Please point me to the article and post. This would be the helpfulness you were hoping to pass on.
Finally, the language problems are over. No more laws, policies and by-laws are needed, please return to regularly scheduled programming.
stella informs us “who ever said anything about Francophones not getting rights. We get what we deserve, no more, no less then any other Canadian.
bella September 9, 2013 at 9:23 am
bella September 6, 2013 at 5:33 am
By the way hungry, I looked for your response to the Thibodeau matter and was unable to find it. Please point me to the article and post. This would be the helpfulness you were hoping to pass on.
AGAIN , AGAIN , AGAIN, AGAIN, AGAIN , AND AGAIN. Over and Over and Over again
The same questions. Over and over and over AGAIN AND AGAIN.
bella September 9, 2013 at 9:23 am
bella September 6, 2013 at 5:33 am
By the way hungry, I looked for your response to the Thibodeau matter and was unable to find it. Please point me to the article and post. This would be the helpfulness you were hoping to pass on.
AGAIN , AGAIN , AGAIN, AGAIN, AGAIN , AND AGAIN. Over and Over and Over again
Hungry for the Truth…. September 5, 2013 at 9:22 am
bella September 5, 2013 at 6:49 am
Again I see you refuse to acknowledge that I have already answered your question. I never once ever posted about this. I did not have an opinion then and not now. You’ll have to debate your trivia with some one that thinks it’s significant.
As I have said to another poster that utilizes the same badgering technique, I say the same to you.
I’m excessively comfortable of letting the readers choice decide. They are intelligent. They will surely discern a reoccurring pattern that you have used before when you want to badger me.
Nothing productive in your insistence. It only has one purpose. I’ll let the readers decide.
Hope this helps.
highlander September 8, 2013 at 11:11 pm
“its not often hungry remains quiet and there is a good reason ….but I do not need to tell you fine folks what that reason is…..”
You have answered the folks with your expert advise. That’s the only answer that counts. You posted your answer and no one is going to change it. So why waste time.
I’m excessively comfortable of letting the readers choice decide. They are intelligent. They will surely discern a reoccurring pattern that you have used before when you want to badger me.
stellabystarlight September 9, 2013 at 8:31 am
“highlander wrote: Do you think Ontario should implement the same language laws as Quebec and limit French? ”
” Why should they? We have no problems with language in ONTARIO……”
So is that to mean we should scrap French services language act?
If not ,then it is to say we do have language problems!
So stella you agree to LANGUAGE APARTHEID IN QUEBEC,but yet you do not agree with those same terms in Ontario.
It’s alright to oppress all other languages in Quebec in the religious like zeal of protecting one language ?
Since when is it ethically right to oppress All other cultures in the defense of one?
Welcome to Canada’s home grown LANGUAGE APARTHEID!
Hungry for the Truth…. September 9, 2013 at 11:51 am
” Again I see you refuse to acknowledge that I have already answered your question. I never once ever posted about this. I did not have an opinion then and not now.”
The question was asked to you ,yet you are evasive.
You seem not to have a problem researching (if its in your interest) and for this subject the links were provided.
The readers I am sure understand your reason to be evasive and uncharacteristic void of views on particular points brought up.
Your silence denotes that you agree with the Thibodeau’s.
@ eric re: your question(s)
Eric my friend. If you expect a “sane” or or even mediocre response from the “agitator gang” for any questions you may wish to pose PLEASE be very specific and don’t use too many big words or grandiose concepts.
As you can tell by Stella’s response on September 9, 2013 at 8:31 am. They don’t handle depth too well 🙂
highlander September 9, 2013 at 12:24 pm
“The readers I am sure understand your reason to be evasive and uncharacteristic void of views on particular points brought up.”
Can you answer me what is your plan of action to bring fairness to the unfair Hiring Practices in Cornwall?
The readers I am sure understand your reason to be evasive and uncharacteristic void of views on particular points brought up. They can see through the games.
Your silence denotes that you agree with the Thibodeau’s.
They do not denote anything. Your suggestive interpretation tell readers what to think. Readers are intelligent and can conclude without your suggestion of how you interpret my silence.
Could it be simply as I stated .
I did not have an opinion then and not now. No more than that.