Jump to content


Photo

Russell by-law spat sparks bilingual study


880 replies to this topic

#1 Leafless

Leafless

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,199 posts

Posted 22 January 2008 - 12:25 PM

Wording for the proposed sign bylaw is similar to one that has been in place in nearby Clarence-Rockland since 2005. The motion, proposed by Ms. Dicaire, requires that all new commercial signs be bilingual. The dimension and style of lettering must be identical in both languages, but the name of the business may remain unilingual.


http://www.canada.co...80-7f98894ca5a8

This proposed, to be imposed by-law, effectively removes Canadians democratic right of freedom of expression.

It will allow a by-law to override constitutional rights to make (force) businesses to provide bilingual signs in a province (Ontario) that is not 'officially bilingual.

It also focuses on the premier of the province himself Dalton Mc.Guinty, a bilingual Liberal, who is not standing up for the rights of the large English speaking majority to make the province 'officially English speaking' to protect the democratic rights and JOBS of the majority English speaking population.

This outright language discrimination further pits the English against the French and will force the English speaking public to stay clear of any politician that wants anything to do with bilingualism and to stand up for their democratic rights and not to be walked on by discriminatory French policies.

#2 guyser

guyser

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,503 posts

Posted 22 January 2008 - 03:04 PM

This proposed, to be imposed by-law, effectively removes Canadians democratic right of freedom of expression.

Where or what rights are denied?

It will allow a by-law to override constitutional rights to make (force) businesses to provide bilingual signs in a province (Ontario) that is not 'officially bilingual.

Hasnt been a problem for the near by community of Clarence Rockland.

Wording for the proposed sign bylaw is similar to one that has been in place in nearby Clarence-Rockland since 2005


It also focuses on the premier of the province himself Dalton Mc.Guinty, a bilingual Liberal, who is not standing up for the rights of the large English speaking majority to make the province 'officially English speaking' to protect the democratic rights and JOBS of the majority English speaking population.

Poppycock. The majority in that community are French speaking. Besides, nothing is mentione implied nor discussed about JOBS denied to english people , who are NOT the majority here.

This outright language discrimination further pits the English against the French and will force the English speaking public to stay clear of any politician that wants anything to do with bilingualism and to stand up for their democratic rights and not to be walked on by discriminatory French policies.


yea, ok. Not in your wildest dreams nor aspirations. Keep trying though.

You live in a major french market , what is the problem?

#3 Leafless

Leafless

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,199 posts

Posted 23 January 2008 - 12:26 PM

Where or what rights are denied?


The right to post signs in the language of your choice.

Read the article, a by-law is being created to override freedom of expression to cater to the language whims of a minority, despite Ontario NOT being officially bilingual.

IOW, French language legislation is being imposed in a democracy with constitutional rights.

Hasnt been a problem for the near by community of Clarence Rockland.


It certainly has been a problem.

Again, majority English speakers of Ontario are being blatantly discriminated upon by having French signs imposed upon a community.

This is in Ontario, not communist Quebec.

Poppycock. The majority in that community are French speaking.


What bearing does that have on the rights of the Ontarians with Ontario Not being officially bilingual and with the language of the majority of Ontario being de-facto English speaking?

Besides, nothing is mentione implied nor discussed about JOBS denied to english people , who are NOT the majority here.
yea, ok. Not in your wildest dreams nor aspirations. Keep trying though.


Ottawa is a prime example where city council designated (without allowing input from the residents of the city of Ottawa) Ottawa officially bilingual following in the same manner as federal bilingualism.

This has induced private employers outside the confines of city of Ottawa employment to hire bilingual individuals to cater to the French fact, in a province that is NOT officially bilingual, nor it's residents never given the democratic opportunity to voice there concerns in a referendum.

We have cars pouring over from Quebec filling many Ottawa jobs, federal, municipal and private, taking jobs away from the MAJORITY unilingual English, Ottawa population.

This is outright discrimination against the majority English population and it seems this is the corrupt way of imposing federal style official bilingualism and is being propagated anywhere there is a small group of minority French, relating to Ontario.


You live in a major french market , what is the problem?


You have your facts wrong.

Quebec is close by the border of Ontario but its residents have nothing to do with being part of Ontario's workforce legally and is another province that harbours repulsive discriminatory language legislation.

Ottawa also has a very small French population, so I really don't know what you are talking about.

#4 guyser

guyser

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,503 posts

Posted 23 January 2008 - 01:44 PM

The right to post signs in the language of your choice.

Huh? They can post in english. No one is stopping them.

Read the article, a by-law is being created to override freedom of expression to cater to the language whims of a minority, despite Ontario NOT being officially bilingual.

I read the article. The by law pertains to that small community , so the rest of Ont has nothing to do with this is and you are creating a straw man.

IOW, French language legislation is being imposed in a democracy with constitutional rights.

As much as you would like that to be true, it isnt. It has to do with signs in that community. Are you aware developers/shopping mall owners dictate to their tenants the who what where whys and language that they can use? Are they pandering to others of the non english variety? How about Markham, I can walk a mall and see virtually no english. What of it?

It certainly has been a problem.

Again, majority English speakers of Ontario are being blatantly discriminated upon by having French signs imposed upon a community.

The hell with majority this that or anything else.It has nothing to do with this. This community is french. I repeat, this community in question is french.


This has induced private employers outside the confines of city of Ottawa employment to hire bilingual individuals to cater to the French fact, in a province that is NOT officially bilingual, nor it's residents never given the democratic opportunity to voice there concerns in a referendum.

We have cars pouring over from Quebec filling many Ottawa jobs, federal, municipal and private, taking jobs away from the MAJORITY unilingual English, Ottawa population.

Employers hire who they want.

There is no discussion of jobs in the article since there is nothing in the by law pertaining to jobs. It is something you merely made up since you hate the french. The rain is falling is the frenchies fault...we get it.

You want all jobs held for white english people. You have admitted as much before. aint gonna happen.

Quebec is close by the border of Ontario but its residents have nothing to do with being part of Ontario's workforce legally and is another province that harbours repulsive discriminatory language legislation.

Ottawa also has a very small French population, so I really don't know what you are talking about.


Amongst other things obviously.

Quebecers can work in ontario., and vice versa.How silly!

Nothing to stop them. You could even get a job in Quebec , although if they knew your views......

#5 Leafless

Leafless

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,199 posts

Posted 23 January 2008 - 09:03 PM

Huh? They can post in english. No one is stopping them.


That is the way it should be, but in this case they are implementing a by-law forcing businesses to post their signs in English/French.

Do you not understand this Nazi style undemocratic conflict?

I read the article. The by law pertains to that small community , so the rest of Ont has nothing to do with this is and you are creating a straw man.


Ottawa has already been through this in a similar fashion, that is, bilingual policies being decided by municipal and provincial politicians, by-passing the input of the populace. Rockland, Ontario has also seen undemocratic linguistic legislation like you already pointed out.

Again, do you not understand this undemocratic Nazi style conflict implemented by politicans emulating a federal style bilingual policy in a province (Ontario) that is NOT officially bilingual?

As much as you would like that to be true, it isnt. It has to do with signs in that community. Are you aware developers/shopping mall owners dictate to their tenants the who what where whys and language that they can use? Are they pandering to others of the non english variety? How about Markham, I can walk a mall and see virtually no english. What of it?


You are repeating yourself.

No one is questing the fact about being able to post signs in WHATEVER language you choose.

The involves creating a by-law forcing a community to post signs in a certain language, in this case French. You seem to have no problem allowing a by-law to override freedom of expression.

he hell with majority this that or anything else.It has nothing to do with this. This community is french. I repeat, this community in question is french.


It does not matter what the community is and besides there are many English speaking residents living there in a province that has no official language policy.

The point AGAIN is FORCING by way of a by-law for businesses in that community to post there signs in English/French. This is undemocratic and is removes democratic constitutional rights (freedom of expression).

Employers hire who they want.

There is no discussion of jobs in the article since there is nothing in the by law pertaining to jobs. It is something you merely made up since you hate the french. The rain is falling is the frenchies fault...we get it.


This is entirely tied in to jobs as I explained previously with the imposed bilingual policy in Ottawa.

Russell is headed down the same path.

You want all jobs held for white english people. You have admitted as much before. aint gonna happen.


I support jobs for the most qualified applicant and not solely based on linguistics such as imposed bilingualism by municipal and provincial politicians that have no business emulating federal style bilingualism, overriding the legitimate concerns of the majority English speaking tax payers.

Amongst other things obviously.

Quebecers can work in ontario., and vice versa.How silly!

Nothing to stop them. You could even get a job in Quebec , although if they knew your views......


It is obvious you know little about the hiring practices of English speaking or bilingual English speaking Canadians in Quebec. I suppose you forget their official language is French with no bilingual policies antwhere in Quebec.

Quebec is highly protective of its French workforce amd hires Quebecers for employment.

Check out the statistics how many English speaking employees are in the federal or provincial civil service in Quebec.

#6 guyser

guyser

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,503 posts

Posted 24 January 2008 - 11:22 AM

That is the way it should be, but in this case they are implementing a by-law forcing businesses to post their signs in English/French.

So you agree , no one is discriminating. Thanks.

Do you not understand this Nazi style undemocratic conflict?

Nope. I see the people voted and and got what they voted for.

Ottawa has already been through this in a similar fashion, that is, bilingual policies being decided by municipal and provincial politicians, by-passing the input of the populace. Rockland, Ontario has also seen undemocratic linguistic legislation like you already pointed out.

Prov politicians have nothing to do with this.By passing the populace. So I should have a say in what this community wants to do? Can we all vote ? wont cost much....

Again, do you not understand this undemocratic Nazi style conflict implemented by politicans emulating a federal style bilingual policy in a province (Ontario) that is NOT officially bilingual?

Nope. We are not officially bilingual , and of course that has nothing to do with this. But it is your mantra so knock yourself out.

You are repeating yourself.

Can you guess the reason?


Let me clean this following qote up for you.

The involves creating a by-law forcing a community to post signs in TWO certain languages, in this case French and english. You seem to have no problem allowing a by-law to override freedom of expression.
It does not matter what the community is and besides there are many English speaking residents living there in a province that has no official language policy.

It does not matter? Well the english have not been inconvenienced, and neither have the french.Overiding freedom of expression? Big stretch.

This is entirely tied in to jobs as I explained previously with the imposed bilingual policy in Ottawa.

It is obvious you know little about the hiring practices of English speaking or bilingual English speaking Canadians in Quebec. I suppose you forget their official language is French with no bilingual policies antwhere in Quebec.

Quebec is highly protective of its French workforce amd hires Quebecers for employment.

Check out the statistics how many English speaking employees are in the federal or provincial civil service in Quebec.

Again, it has nothign to do with jobs, but you dont accept that. Well too bad, it has nothing to do with jobs. Sure Que makes it hard for Ontarians to work in quebec, same in reverse to some degree.
But they can and do. And I dont really care what the numbers show, you wanted to make it sound as if it was illegal, and it isnt.

#7 Leafless

Leafless

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,199 posts

Posted 24 January 2008 - 02:20 PM

So you agree , no one is discriminating. Thanks.


No, I don't agree and it is clear you are trying to make a farce out of serious situation.

Nope. I see the people voted and and got what they voted for.


What the people got is an English speaking mayor in what you describe as a so called French community, who is listens to a few hard core French separatist on Russell council, who are trying to force private buisness to post bilingual signs by way of an imposed by-law.

Prov politicians have nothing to do with this.By passing the populace. So I should have a say in what this community wants to do? Can we all vote ? wont cost much....


Provincial and municipal politicians do have a lot to do with this as the ones who are promoting federal style bilingualism are LIBERAL supporters and are unilaterally legislating French bilingual policies as with the case with Ottawa or as with the case of Russell with bilingual signs in a province that does NOT support official bilingualism.

Nope. We are not officially bilingual , and of course that has nothing to do with this. But it is your mantra so knock yourself out.


Sounds like it is your mantra to support undemocratic and discriminatory language policies
and shows your hatred towards the democratic rights associated with any kind of legitimate majority, especially being White and english speaking.

Let me clean this following qote up for you.

It does not matter? Well the english have not been inconvenienced, and neither have the french.Overiding freedom of expression? Big stretch.


The English have been badly discriminated upon in Ottawa by having a bilingual language policy imposed on them in a totally undemocratic fashion and I would go as far as to say illegal fashion but is supported by a Liberal provincial premier Dalton Mc.Guinty who supports federal bilingual policies.

And if this sign by-law is successful in Russell, the English buisness owners will be badly discriminated upon by removing their right to post commercial signs in the language of their choice, a VIOLATION OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION A CHARTER RIGHT.

Again, it has nothign to do with jobs, but you dont accept that. Well too bad, it has nothing to do with jobs. Sure Que makes it hard for Ontarians to work in quebec, same in reverse to some degree.


It has everthing to do with jobs.

If an English buisness is forced to post a bilingual sign then they will be forced to serve a Francophone in French, meaning they will be forced to hire a bilingual person and more than likely this means a Francophone.

Ottawa is in the same boat with a municipal bilingual policy that forces managers to be bilingual to accommodate French employees who like the federal government can work in the language of their choice.

This city bilingual policy greatly reduces and effectively destroys any chance of majority unilingual English speaking applicants of gaining employment with the city of Ottawa. Many private buisnesses follow suit relating to this city bilingaul policy and in turn hire bilingual applicants, again being mostly Francophone.


But they can and do. And I dont really care what the numbers show, you wanted to make it sound as if it was illegal, and it isnt.


A province like Quebec who purposely foils federal bilingual policy and Charter rights should be financially punished by the federal government to conform.

Only problem is the feds are not doing nothing about the situation which makes a farce out of our Charter and demonstrates how corrupt and dysfunctional our federal government really is.

Don't worry guyser the English in Ontario could begin to pull the same criminal acts they pull in Quebec relating to English signs in Quebec and English buisness in Quebec and really I don't have to say what those illegal criminal acts are, do I.

#8 Borg

Borg

    Full Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,397 posts
  • Location:Somewhere on the journey of life

Posted 25 January 2008 - 10:31 AM

Thin edge of the wedge. Sooner or later the language issue in this area will come to the top again and it will get worse.

This is nothing more than a method of opening the door for more.

Bending over in an attempt to appear willing to compromise simply encourages more of the same.

Borg

#9 rbacon

rbacon

    New Member

  • Banned
  • Pip
  • 246 posts

Posted 09 February 2008 - 07:38 PM

Bi-lingualism was forced on all English speaking Canadians without our consent. Cultural genocide by Trudeau. So far the Canadian Taxpayer has spent 700 Billion taxdollars. Result one racsist Unilingual separatist Province. Bring down the racist Bilingual Mullah's.

#10 CANADIEN

CANADIEN

    Full Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,681 posts

Posted 11 May 2008 - 06:24 AM

The same non-sense again.

Not that I am big fan of that municipal by-law, but since no language is banned from signage (unlike what we get with that pile of m*nure called Quebec's language laws), the argument that it violates freedom of expression falls flat. This by-law prevents NOONE from having English, or French, or any other language on their commercial signage.

Instead of whining about a non-existing violation of freedom of expression, some may want to just tell us what they exactly think about businesses who don't have signage and services in the first language of about 2/3 of the community they are located in (both Russell Township and Prescott-Russell County have a majority French-speaking population).

And I would also be curious to see what they thought when municipalities north of Toronto and near Vancouver attempted to pass by-laws in the 90's mandating English alongside Chinese on commercial signage.

Edited by CANADIEN, 11 May 2008 - 06:34 AM.


#11 CANADIEN

CANADIEN

    Full Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,681 posts

Posted 11 May 2008 - 06:33 AM

Bi-lingualism was forced on all English speaking Canadians without our consent. Cultural genocide by Trudeau. So far the Canadian Taxpayer has spent 700 Billion taxdollars. Result one racsist Unilingual separatist Province. Bring down the racist Bilingual Mullah's.


Our consent was not sought either when women got the right to vote, when the Chinese got the right to become Canadian citizens, when it became illegal to refuse to serve Black people in restaurants. Which one hould we reverse first?

And of course, we can all see how English is fast disappearing in Canada :lol:

I'll grant this to you, there is indeed a racist unilingual streak in Quebec. But hey, we are an officially bilingual country, which means that people have a right to be language idiots in French as well as in English.

#12 Argus

Argus

    Has more eyes than you

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,509 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Yes
  • Interests:Peace, Order and Good Government

Posted 11 May 2008 - 08:34 AM

Huh? They can post in english. No one is stopping them.


Isn't the entire idea here to force them to post signs in French too? Personally, I find the idea of little language commisars going around with their rulers and measuring the size of lettering to be utterly absurd. Spending money over something like that in Ontario is ludicrous.

As much as you would like that to be true, it isnt. It has to do with signs in that community. Are you aware developers/shopping mall owners dictate to their tenants the who what where whys and language that they can use?



Yes, well, they own that property. The government does not own the signs put up at their own expense by private business. I realize that to Communists there is no such thing as private property, and I recognize there is a lot of that communistic style of belief in most of the Left in Canada, but as someone on the right (ie, someone who respects private property) I dislike government imposing its will on private individuals for no good reason.

Are they pandering to others of the non english variety? How about Markham, I can walk a mall and see virtually no english. What of it?


I guess that demonstrates that Francophones are more willing to impose their will on their neighbours for the sake of nationalism and ethnic pride.

The hell with majority this that or anything else.It has nothing to do with this. This community is french. I repeat, this community in question is french.


You know, a smart man would actually find out if the community was French before thumping his fist on the table and shouting out something that definitive. In point of fact, the majority of that community are English. The town of Embrun is largely French, but, for example, the town of Russel is mostly English.

There is no discussion of jobs in the article since there is nothing in the by law pertaining to jobs. It is something you merely made up since you hate the french

.

What he has is called k-n-o-w-l-e-d-g-e. It's a hard concept for you, I know. Try looking it up somewhere.
Those of us who live in the Ottawa area recognize at once what the phrase "bilingualism" means. When you decide to make a given organization bilingual it means get rid of the Anglos, and hire Francophones. A few years ago if you walked through the employees parking lot at the Civic Hospital you'd see only Ontario plates. Now that it's part of the "Ottawa Hospital" and bilingual, you see row on row of Quebec plates. That's what bilingualism means. The entire reason there are so many Francophones in eastern Ottawa is because they're all transplanted Quebecers who came across for those comfy government jobs that are reserved for them.
“Public opinion, I am sorry to say, will bear a great deal of nonsense. There is scarcely any absurdity so gross, whether in religion, politics, science or manners, which it will not bear.” Ralph Waldo Emerson

#13 Argus

Argus

    Has more eyes than you

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,509 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Yes
  • Interests:Peace, Order and Good Government

Posted 11 May 2008 - 08:41 AM

Instead of whining about a non-existing violation of freedom of expression, some may want to just tell us what they exactly think about businesses who don't have signage and services in the first language of about 2/3 of the community they are located in (both Russell Township and Prescott-Russell County have a majority French-speaking population).


Russel Township has a majority English population.

I find the idea of having forced bilingualism absurd given how tight budgets are. Official bilingualism has a tremendous added cost on doing business - all for the sake of French pride.
“Public opinion, I am sorry to say, will bear a great deal of nonsense. There is scarcely any absurdity so gross, whether in religion, politics, science or manners, which it will not bear.” Ralph Waldo Emerson

#14 CANADIEN

CANADIEN

    Full Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,681 posts

Posted 11 May 2008 - 09:31 AM

Russel Township has a majority English population.

I find the idea of having forced bilingualism absurd given how tight budgets are. Official bilingualism has a tremendous added cost on doing business - all for the sake of French pride.

I will stand corrected. From a statistical point of view, there is a virtual tie (less than 1.5%) between the population of the Township of Russell whose first language is either French or English. Does not change the fact that there is nothing violating anyone's freedom of expression in the by-law of the Township of Russell. No more that there was anything violating freedom of expression in similar by-laws proposed elsewhere in Ontario or in BC that sought to mandate English beside Chinese on commercial signs. Or the existing Toronto by-law that states that taxicab clients have a right to be served in English. What do you think about those, Argus?

Now that we have dealt with the one thing I got wrong, let's deal with some misconceptions I believe you have:

- that official bilingualism is about taking jobs away from unilingual Anglophones, or Anglophones period: no more that it is taking away jobs from unilingual Francophones. Canadians for Language Fairness (a misnomer if there was ever one) tried that one when attempting to have Ottawa's bilingual services by-law invalidated by the courts. As was revealed during the proceedings, a number of senior management positions were occupied by unilingual Anglophones, even though (according to CLF) they were allegedly closed to unilingual Anglophones;

- that there are too many Quebec licence plates in the parking lots of Ottawa hospitals: I thought that only the Quebec separatists whined about how many people came from another province to work in their own (gee, my second misconception of the day). There are all Canadian license plates.

- that official bilingualism is about "French pride": First, it is French-Canadians, not French. Second, it is not about pride, it is about the rights of Canadians.

- that "enforced bilingualism" is absurd: What is absurd is the notion that Canadians in 2008 should not be able as a matter of fact and rights to have information on the products they buy, or access to federal government services in the Canadian language of their choice.

#15 Argus

Argus

    Has more eyes than you

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,509 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Yes
  • Interests:Peace, Order and Good Government

Posted 11 May 2008 - 01:42 PM

I will stand corrected. From a statistical point of view, there is a virtual tie (less than 1.5%) between the population of the Township of Russell whose first language is either French or English. Does not change the fact that there is nothing violating anyone's freedom of expression in the by-law of the Township of Russell.


I made no claim regarding freedom of expression. However, I believe that if the government is going to impose a needless task on individuals it behooves government to pay for it. So far as I know signs are often charged by the letter, and of course, translation is an added cost. So the signs will cost twice as much. The township should pick up that cost, not the businesses. And, of course, there is the added cost of hiring people who are less capable, less qualified, less skilled, and less knowledgeable, and promoting them, based on language skills not job skills.

No more that there was anything violating freedom of expression in similar by-laws proposed elsewhere in Ontario or in BC that sought to mandate English beside Chinese on commercial signs. Or the existing Toronto by-law that states that taxicab clients have a right to be served in English. What do you think about those, Argus?


I don't think the two issues, while related, are that similar. The problems in BC and Toronto are foreigners coming here and not adapting to our language but expecting those around them to adapt to theirs. I personally think it's a problem of the low quality of immigrants we're getting and the poor selection criteria. But that's neither here nor there. If Chinese people want to put up only Chinese signs and deal only with Chinese customers that's okay by me. I won't shop there. And I probably would not shop at a store which had only French signs and only served people in French. I presume if Francophones cared enough they would do the same and not shop at English stores.

- that official bilingualism is about taking jobs away from unilingual Anglophones, or Anglophones period: no more that it is taking away jobs from unilingual Francophones.


Nonsense. The numbers are far from equal in terms of bilingualism. If you require an employee to be bilingual then the odds are very strong that employee will be a francophone. Treasury boards own figures have shown that in a region which is about 75% anglo three out of four bilingual jobs go to Francophones.

Canadians for Language Fairness (a misnomer if there was ever one) tried that one when attempting to have Ottawa's bilingual services by-law invalidated by the courts. As was revealed during the proceedings, a number of senior management positions were occupied by unilingual Anglophones, even though (according to CLF) they were allegedly closed to unilingual Anglophones;


I'm not aware of what points they raised, however, I do know from the federal government that almost all unilingual managers are grandfathered in. The number of Francophones in management rises every year, and the number of Anglophones drops as those who got in prior to bilingualism retire. Just 8 years ago, when I started, 90% of managers and and all four directors and the DG in my directorate were Anglophone. Now the DG and two of the directors, and about half the managers are Francophones. Most new Program and Project managers are Francophones, hired straight out of college. Virtually all administration staff, where bilingualism requirements are highest, are Francophones (though none deal with the public).

That is simply what bilingualism does.

- that there are too many Quebec licence plates in the parking lots of Ottawa hospitals: I thought that only the Quebec

separatists whined about how many people came from another province to work in their own (gee, my second misconception of the day). There are all Canadian license plates.


And who comes to Quebec to work? Unwilling anglos who work for the feds and whose jobs were transferred over there after they took them. That's about it. Quebecers flood across the bridges to Ottawa to work every day, in every sector of the economy.

- that official bilingualism is about "French pride": First, it is French-Canadians, not French. Second, it is not about pride, it is about the rights of Canadians.


Bilingualism has nothing whatsoever to do with the rights of Canadians. If it did, then it would stop at the service desk. I'm in full agreement that where numbers warrant service ought to be provided to the public in both languages. That does not mean that every manager, almost none of whom ever see the public, needs to be bilingual. It does not mean every inside secretary, clerk, messenger, IT support person, Hr specialist, etc. etc. etc needs to be bilingual. That has NOTHING to do with the rights of Canadians and everything to do with Quebecers in power allotting more jobs to Quebecers in order to increase Quebec's power.
“Public opinion, I am sorry to say, will bear a great deal of nonsense. There is scarcely any absurdity so gross, whether in religion, politics, science or manners, which it will not bear.” Ralph Waldo Emerson



Reply to this topic