tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post6536927180430644197..comments2024-03-29T04:13:44.353-04:00Comments on BigCityLib Strikes Back: Bill C-232: The Pro Sidebigcitylibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05081538803991095825noreply@blogger.comBlogger65125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-3576541906489658712010-05-20T14:52:36.150-04:002010-05-20T14:52:36.150-04:00OK I'll say what I think you meant--non "...OK I'll say what I think you meant--non "pure laine" francophones aren't really welcome in Quebec, which is really reserved as the homeland for the French People of North America. Others have no need to be there as they can be at home everywhere else in Canada. Their presence as a minority is tolerated but not really welcomed and they must now live in a certain way so as not to in any way "threaten" the collective rights of the French majority.<br /><br />And at the same time the federal Canadian state must be bilingual and welcome French as a "founding" people (ignoring the First Nations who were conquered, colonized, massacred and forcibly assimilated by armies from France. (And I know what you REALLY meant but are unwilling to say directly.)<br /><br />This can be debated on its merits, but there is a parallel that is so striking that it must be pointed out: if a Jewish Israeli said that there is no need for Arabs to live west of the Jordan River and that they are at home in two dozen countries elsewhere in "Arabia", that view would be called racism, apartheid, etc. It would be viewed as rightwing nonsense. Yet in Canada this type of thinking vis a vis Quebec is meant to be welcome on the left with criticism of it labelled as rightwing nutbar bigotry.Marky Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00465497859724027212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-69990244945166964612010-05-19T18:38:04.076-04:002010-05-19T18:38:04.076-04:00This is slightly off topic, but I had to respond t...This is slightly off topic, but I had to respond to this comment:<br /><br /><i>Is that what this is about, failing to introduce any changes into the existing status quo, cowering in fear of provoking an outpouring of anti-Quebec bigotry in Western Canada.</i><br /><br />Anti-Quebec bigotry? Cowering in fear to the West?<br /><br />First of all, being opposed to the constant demands of Quebec does not constitute bigotry.<br />Second of all, name <b>ONE</b> thing the federal government has given western Canada other than a temporary hold on enacting climate change reform--which is necessary for the record, I do believe that strongly. Name one, please.<br /><br />Imagine this situation: the government of Canada enacts strong climate change reform and cripples the economies of the west, particularly AB and SK. To try to lessen the blow, the federal government siphons some money out of Quebec to soften the economic shock felt in the energy producing countries or, at the least, changes equalization so that 13% of Quebec's budget doesn't come out of another province (notably Alberta). Imagine how well that would go over before you talk about anti-Quebec bigotry in the west. There is a reason there is some anti-Quebec sentiment, but referring to it as bigotry is ignorant as all hell.<br /><br />As far as cowering in fear goes, are you honestly going to tell me, a western Canadian, that Canadian governments are more concerned with upsetting the west than they are with upsetting Quebec? Bullshit.<br /><br />The reason (sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth, Marky Mark) that some of us don't go over to blogging tories is because unlike Quebec (I use Quebec to say French Canada), a lot of us vote for something other than regional concerns. I'm a westerner who believes in a strong federal government with a national presence, and social justice within a free-market system. That's why I vote Liberal. That's why I'm not a Tory.<br /><br />What difference does this bill make to the French people? Nothing. All it does is create something symbolic that inconveniences Western Canadians and potentially weakens the quality of our highest court. But I guess a few people can feel safe that their language won't die.<br /><br />I think there is a misconception in Quebec that their language and culture is under constant assault; there is a misconception that Anglos make more money than Francos in Quebec as well. Doesn't make it right, by the way.<br /><br />One thing I take from this that interests me is the difference in how the two sides are thinking. If you've done the good old MBTI before, you know the difference between Thinking vs. Feeling. The Francophones appear to be using, for the most part, feeling--they want the change for emotional reasons and equality. The Anglos appear to be looking at the potential implications of it from a logical perspective--unsurprising considering a lack of emotional attachment to the language. Just an observation.<br /><br />Sorry if this is gibberish, I'm at a terrible conference right now and am typing sporadically. As a consequence this whole argument is probably very disjointed.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15207861101065195385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-72390330152014718942010-05-19T16:48:47.178-04:002010-05-19T16:48:47.178-04:00Quite simply that some of the most outspoken advoc...<em>Quite simply that some of the most outspoken advocates of English language rights in Quebec hold no historic interest in this cultural conflict but hail from completely different cultural backgrounds yet chose to adopt English as their preferred culture and to champion its cause. <br /><br />Given the supremacy and dominance of English everywhere else on the North American continent, outside of Quebec, I fail to comprehend the obstinacy of such persons in campaigning against Quebec's existing policies seeking to protect its own culture, when their own anglophone cultural preference is so easily accommodated anywhere else within Canada's boundaries.</em> <br /><br />1. And what group affiliation are you assigning to me?<br /><br />2. Is the argument you're making that Quebec as a state should be the homeland of the French People of North America, with limited legal minority rights, but that Canada as a state should be fully bilingual? I think that's what you're saying, and I think that is what generations of Quebec politicians at the federal and provincial level have been saying. Fine, but why would you call opposition to that view bigotry?Marky Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00465497859724027212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-62995281553491496162010-05-19T16:43:36.490-04:002010-05-19T16:43:36.490-04:00Quite simply that some of the most outspoken advoc...Quite simply that some of the most outspoken advocates of English language rights in Quebec hold no historic interest in this cultural conflict but hail from completely different cultural backgrounds yet chose to adopt English as their preferred culture and to champion its cause. <br /><br />Given the supremacy and dominance of English everywhere else on the North American continent, outside of Quebec, I fail to comprehend the obstinacy of such persons in campaigning against Quebec's existing policies seeking to protect its own culture, when their own anglophone cultural preference is so easily accomodated anywhere else within Canada's boundaries.dupmarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17421029228908771593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-75556892529000734172010-05-19T16:17:48.147-04:002010-05-19T16:17:48.147-04:00And what's Marky Mark's complaint, he does...<em>And what's Marky Mark's complaint, <strong>he doesn't hail from Anglo-Saxon stock</strong> but rather are championing the cause of an adopted culture</em> <br /><br />This requires an explanation. I think I know what you're saying, but please be clearer.<br /><br />You're also missing my point. Canada moved to a long overdo policy of accommodation and fairness. I support that movement-but the response of Quebec has been as if this never occurred. Why?Marky Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00465497859724027212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-15016079133563388382010-05-19T16:10:50.874-04:002010-05-19T16:10:50.874-04:00Is that what this is about, failing to introduce a...Is that what this is about, failing to introduce any changes into the existing status quo, cowering in fear of provoking an outpouring of anti-Quebec bigotry in Western Canada. <br /><br />If such is the state of affairs in this Confederation, better to bring it forth into the open into the light of day, not to engage in some pretence of unity and cross cultural pan-Canadian solidarity - which you argue does not exist. If such is the state of affairs, better not to hide behind deceptions but to concede the ground to Duceppe on the issue and start constitutional negociations.<br /><br />As for the rest, given all the recriminations against Quebec I fail to understand why someone like Marky Mark doesn't simply cross over to the blogging tories - he would be more comfortable sharing cultural grievances and pandering to anti-Quebec bigotry with them.<br /><br />My ancestors who hailed from New France had a direct vested interest in the cultural rivalry between the two founding cultures in this Confederation, and in defending their cultural interests, yet saw their rights denied, crushed, eradicated when they sought to expand the cultural boundaries of French Canada to Western Canada in the days of Riel. And what's Marky Mark's complaint, he doesn't hail from Anglo-Saxon stock but rather are championing the cause of an adopted culture and complaining that it has not extended its supremacy and dominance over the totality of Canada's boundaries, so sad, too bad, if the remaining pockets of French Canadian culture, those which survived the aggressive drive for Anglo assimilation prevalent throughout the rest of Canada are wiped out in pursuit of what he claims is a policy of linguistic equity and fairness.dupmarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17421029228908771593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-45127585390178185872010-05-19T15:26:47.751-04:002010-05-19T15:26:47.751-04:00dupmar,
You say we have a "bilingual state&q...dupmar,<br /><br />You say we have a "bilingual state" but don't really define what that means. MP's aren't universally bilingual and we rely on translation. National media aren't bilingual and instead we have parallel services. It's not self evident to me that a "bilingual state" means that each and every SCC judge must be bilingual at the highest possible level.<br /><br /><em>keep in mind the current government in Quebec is a Liberal government, not the Bloc or PQ, that criticisms such as you wish to address on language and cultural issues should be directed to them.</em><br /><br />Exactly. This is a private member's bill in the federal House and not one that even came from a Quebec MP. But more substantively what we have here is a Quebec state that is <strong>not</strong> bilingual with a federal state that <strong>is</strong> bilingual, this despite a population of anglos in excess of seven figures in Quebec-a population that helped build Quebec but which is now second class. <br /><br />Not only is Quebec as a "state" unilingual but anglos moving to Quebec cannot educate their children in English and anglos cannot carry on business primarily in English even when their customers are predominantly English. <br /><br />This strikes many as oppressive. Quebec reached a decision to maximize the "collective" rights of the French people and culture at the expense of any collective or individual rights of the English minority. <br /><br />Among the many consequences of this policy has been the replacement of Montreal as the economic capital of Canada by Toronto and an overall shift of wealth and influence westward along the 401 and beyond. Quebec gave aw3ay many of its best and brightest without even bargaining for future considerations or "draft picks."<br /><br />I would have thought that what I've described as the reality in the current Quebec was enough to placate the nationalists and that we don't now need to piss off western Canadians who already have figured out that adding yet another piece of bilingualism to the federal state will not appease Quebec nationalists.Marky Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00465497859724027212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-23148742232631991542010-05-19T15:05:24.608-04:002010-05-19T15:05:24.608-04:00The issue pertains to the state - not the country....The issue pertains to the state - not the country. We have a bilingual state, the judiciary is part of this federal state, and the expectation is that state officials - not the uneducated masses at large - reflect this reality.<br /><br />There was a time when elected public officials and statesmen in our Republic to the South, who had far less opportunity and educational resources available than lawyers and law students in Western Canada, nonetheless found the wherewithal to master foreign languages such as French, as it was then deemed essential to the pursuit of their interests in the international arena.<br /><br />The objections raised largely reflect intellectual laziness and indifference to the affairs of the federal state, but more than that, an attitude of opposition to the cultural duality at the core of our Confederation.<br /><br />As for constant comments and reference to Quebec, keep in mind this is about French Canada, not simply Quebec. Notwithstanding all the criticisms of protectionist cultural policies in Quebec, keep in mind the current government in Quebec is a Liberal government, not the Bloc or PQ, that criticisms such as you wish to adddress on language and cultural issues should be directed to them.<br />But all told, I believe Levesque and Bourassa were correct not to place their trust in Trudeau and the federal state with respect to language protections but to seek their own protections, and nothing exemplified this more than the unilateral repatriation of the constitution despite Quebec's objections and Trudeau's subsequent confrontation with Quebec Premier Bourassa and the then existing Progressive Conservative federal government over proposed constitutional amendments as incorporated in the Meech Lake Accord.dupmarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17421029228908771593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-66975644795979427702010-05-19T12:36:41.306-04:002010-05-19T12:36:41.306-04:00I guess I forgot how much experience you must have...<i>I guess I forgot how much experience you must have learning French out west.</i><br /><br />Give it a rest. I have plenty of friends out west that are fluent in french, simply because they were willing to make the effort. I suspect anyone with aspirations of sitting on the Supreme Court would be willing to put in at least the same amount of effort as these folks who are only doing it for self-improvement. <br /><br />My girlfriend took German at Carleton U and is fluent in that language. Not much chance to practice that around O-Town, but she managed. <br /><br />I also lived in rural Ireland where I met many people who became fluent in languages for no other reason than fun. The Irish, for whatever reason, don't have the same phobia of other languages that the English and, apparently, Western Canadians have.<br /><br />Furthermore, do you really believe that nobody in the United States, or any other unilingual country, outside of a professional capacity, is fluent in any language other than english?<br /><br />Everyday exposure to a language makes things easier, no doubt, but lack of it is no real excuse for not learning, especially in the information age.Shinerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08016613530584645357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-5625422953590379652010-05-19T12:15:59.065-04:002010-05-19T12:15:59.065-04:00Which is also far from settled. I don't accept...<i>Which is also far from settled. I don't accept for a second the premise of many of the arguments that it's just too darned hard to learn french if you live in the west or that it's impossible to get to a satisfactory level. Complete hogwash.</i><br /><br />I guess I forgot how much experience you must have learning French out west. Last I checked you lived in one of our most bilingual cities, no? Tell me how I am supposed to become fluent and comfortable in French--much less legal French--if under 2% of the population speaks it out here. As I've said, there is no opportunity to apply the language outside of a classroom. We can learn it but the point here is that if this bill is more than symbolism (which it could be for all we know) then it really does limit the pool of western judges. Basic bilingualism? Sure. Fluent and comfortable legal bilingualsim over 99%? Too much. Reality is we don't know the degree to which this bill will be enforced.<br /><br /> <i>As it so often does, it comes down to the usual Conservative worry that someone somewhere is getting something. yet in this case it's not just the Conservatives.</i><br /><br />No, Shiner, it isn't just a Conservative worry about someone getting something. This is a gross oversimplification of our argument. Our argument is that literally interpreted (har har) this bill could weaken the SCC as it would reduce the pool upon which it could draw from, particularly the western pool. Therefore your argument about someone getting something is actually the absolute opposite. In a symbolic move to pacify Quebec's insatiable need for more, more, more we are <b>actually</b> losing; we are losing out on having the most competent, capable SCC possible because of bullshit language issues.<br /><br />If it isn't literal interpretation, fine. Our SCC is already possessing of basic bilingualism. It still pisses me off that we are doing something else to make Quebec happy. Just once I'd like to see that province contribute something to Canada. However, the potential ramifications of this bill do not warrant the minor symbolic benefit. It's like our Senate: imperfect, but if we change it we could create far worse issues so lets just leave it the hell alone.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15207861101065195385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-59753589948682336332010-05-19T12:04:30.808-04:002010-05-19T12:04:30.808-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15207861101065195385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-62209720877582727982010-05-19T11:54:45.566-04:002010-05-19T11:54:45.566-04:00I'm actually a big supporter of the Trudeau vi...<i>I'm actually a big supporter of the Trudeau vision, and I'm a Liberal. But I think that vision has been rejected by the Province of Quebec. And I think that western "alienation" is a real issue as well. I just think the change isn't likely to win over hearts and minds in Quebec while it will turn many off elsewhere. Since francophones already have access to all courts under the Charter, I don't see this as a meaningful substantive change that has to be done even if unpopular.</i><br /><br />Which I can accept. For me it seems like common sense that if mid-level clerks in Ottawa are expected to be able to provide services in french and english, the same should go for some of the highest positions in the land. Indeed I was a bit surprised when this came up to learn that you didn't have to be bilingual already.Shinerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08016613530584645357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-265906478262257772010-05-19T11:48:45.065-04:002010-05-19T11:48:45.065-04:00What's concerning is that those who don't ...<em>What's concerning is that those who don't like the bill tend to be branded as intolerant, anti-French, etc., when there are real substantive and process issues at stake.<br /><br /><br />Which is also far from settled. I don't accept for a second the premise of many of the arguments that it's just too darned hard to learn french if you live in the west or that it's impossible to get to a satisfactory level. Complete hogwash.<br /><br />As I said before, the venom directed at this is completely over blown. I'm surprised at the energy people are expending on fighting against a francophone's ability to be understood by the Supreme Court. As it so often does, it comes down to the usual Conservative worry that someone somewhere is getting something. yet in this case it's not just the Conservatives. </em><br /><br />I'm actually a big supporter of the Trudeau vision, and I'm a Liberal. But I think that vision has been rejected by the Province of Quebec. And I think that western "alienation" is a real issue as well. I just think the change isn't likely to win over hearts and minds in Quebec while it will turn many off elsewhere. Since francophones already have access to all courts under the Charter, I don't see this as a meaningful substantive change that has to be done even if unpopular. And I have a fundamental "process issue" with de facto constitutional change not being debated in the House, let alone by the public.Marky Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00465497859724027212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-6941689907128711892010-05-19T11:40:36.870-04:002010-05-19T11:40:36.870-04:00I'm speaking of symbolism on a much lower leve...I'm speaking of symbolism on a much lower level, a courtesy to francophones who find themselves before the court, not as a silver bullet to Quebec nationalism. <br /><br /><i>What's concerning is that those who don't like the bill tend to be branded as intolerant, anti-French, etc., when there are real substantive and process issues at stake.</i><br /><br />Which is also far from settled. I don't accept for a second the premise of many of the arguments that it's just too darned hard to learn french if you live in the west or that it's impossible to get to a satisfactory level. Complete hogwash.<br /><br />As I said before, the venom directed at this is completely over blown. I'm surprised at the energy people are expending on fighting against a franophone's ability to be understood by the Supreme Court. As it so often does, it comes down to the usual Conservative worry that someone somewhere is getting something. yet in this case it's not just the Conservatives.Shinerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08016613530584645357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-6348443461116434592010-05-19T11:18:54.470-04:002010-05-19T11:18:54.470-04:00Shiner,
I think the argument has been made a few ...Shiner,<br /><br />I think the argument has been made a few times in this thread and in the MSM that "we are a bilingual country." <br /><br />And as for the national unity point, isn't that what is being said when you and others say that what is wrong with this "symbolism"? <br /><br />It seems to me that you either can see that a bilingual SCC is part and parcel of the bilingualism policy that we do have (which is debatable, as we've done here) or you can argue that we need to expand that policy because <br />we are a bilingual country."<br /><br />What's concerning is that those who don't like the bill tend to be branded as intolerant, anti-French, etc., when there are real substantive and process issues at stake.Marky Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00465497859724027212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-33206683742638227952010-05-19T11:10:46.856-04:002010-05-19T11:10:46.856-04:00What's amazing is the complete insistence that...<i>What's amazing is the complete insistence that ever dxecided to become a bilingual country when the record is clear that wasn't agreed to at all. We agreed to official bilingualism at the level of federal institutions. </i><br /><br />Why do you keep on saying this Marky? Nobody here is claiming that Canada is a bilingual country, for the purposes of this debate it doesn't matter. We get it, they don't speak french in Alberta, that has nothing to do with whether a francophone should be understood by Supreme Court Justices. <br /><br /><i>Mandating bilingualism at the SCC will not solve any lingering national unity question.</i><br /><br />Now who's moving the goal posts?Shinerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08016613530584645357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-51344548935112443172010-05-19T10:38:55.263-04:002010-05-19T10:38:55.263-04:00Just to be clear, this initiative didn't come ...Just to be clear, this initiative didn't come from Quebec. It is a private member's bill in the federal Parliament and it comes from an NB MP.<br /><br />What's amazing is the complete insistence that ever dxecided to become a bilingual country when the record is clear that wasn't agreed to at all. We agreed to official bilingualism at the level of federal institutions. And that was meant to decide the issue for Quebec francophones who otherwise might prefer to separate. <br /><br />The policy may be a good one but it can't really be argued that it has become a complete success. It's pretty clear that most people in Quebec favour a form of sovereignty association with the only issue being how much sovereignty and how much association. And at the same time Quebec has significantly curtailed the rights of non-francophones in Quebec in a way that further erodes the case that Trusdeau's vision has been accepted by francophones in Quebec.<br /><br />Mandating bilingualism at the SCC will not solve any lingering national unity question.Marky Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00465497859724027212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-19496571973961623862010-05-19T10:13:49.785-04:002010-05-19T10:13:49.785-04:00Canada is not a bilingual country.
It is a countr...Canada is not a bilingual country.<br /><br />It is a country with two official languages. I believe 15% of the country is bilingual and the majority of it is concentrated in one area.<br /><br />The reality, Dupmar, is that in the West our judges--and people, my girlfriend speaks French--don't speak French outside of the classroom, much less in the courtroom. Basic bilingualism? Sure. High funtioning legal bilingualism? More difficult.<br /><br />While there are many ignorant blogging tories, some of them do raise a very real, very evident fact of western life because there is animosity towards Quebec sometimes. I like to think I'm a little bit less ignorant than a lot of the people who want to crush French rights and would love to vote Quebec out of Canada. <br /><br />When half Quebec--and the majority of francophones vote to leave a country it tells us there is something wrong there. Can so many people truly be wrong or is there a basis to their feelings? When there is so much deep frustration with the political pandering to Quebec--often at the west's expense--and the amount of demanding Quebec does... then maybe the west has a point as well.<br /><br />So there is a logical argument against this I think Dupmar. It isn't all vitriol against French and wanting to crush it--I'd argue that, as per usual, the French are being too sensitive about their language but that's besides the point--but there is some animosity there. Most westerner's think Quebec has the best deal in the country and question why they need ANOTHER symbolic move to appease them. Do they really not have enough? Do we really need to make more moves too make them happy?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15207861101065195385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-43010294483907517752010-05-19T05:38:21.532-04:002010-05-19T05:38:21.532-04:00The practical and legal aspects of the proposed le...The practical and legal aspects of the proposed legislation have been argued at length.<br />But here’s the principle argument - if cultural duality and equality in Canada is real, if the bilingual character of the Canadian state is real and not simply a façade and window dressing to confuse and deceive Quebec nationalists, then it must be functional and operational and not simply cosmetic or symbolic. This extends to the highest court in the land.<br /><br />Here we are discussing the duties and obligations of the ruling elite, not the prejudices of know-nothings and cultural lumpens. If Canada’s ruling elite, and that includes Supreme Court Justices, cannot be convinced of the necessity, of the reality of this cultural equality and duality, that competence in the second language is relevant to their mandate, then how do they expect to communicate this notion and seek to educate the hordes of cultural lumpens who give expression to such bigotry in blogging tory blogs, who take pride in their ignorance and intolerance, their cultural inadequacy and their determination to maintain Anglo supremacy, to eradicate cultural duality , official recognition of the French language and Confederation.<br /><br />Two diametrically opposing views of Canada, of Confederation are being counterposed in these exchanges and surface with respect to comments on “special status” and “identity politics”, one the Reform Party vision of the Canadian federation as an association of equal provinces, the other a vision held by successive generations of French Canadians of Confederation as a union or equal partnership of respective cultures or nations, not provinces.<br /><br />Understandably, it may be difficult for the Reform contingent or wannabe Republican contingent of blogging tories to visualize a world beyond the confines of their American mythology, of Davy Crockett defending the Alamo from the Hispanic menace, a struggle for Anglo supremacy in which they are eager to partake to this day, but I did expect less objection to the proposed legislation from Liberals or NDPers who claim, at least in the abstract, to champion the cause of cultural duality and a bilingual state in Canada.<br /><br />This is hardly anything novel in terms of cultural practice, historical examples and such.<br />There are numerous examples of multi lingual or cultural states encompassing and accomodating various peoples and cultures throughout history. The Reform/ Republican experience only recognizes one variant, conquest, subjugation , cultural assimilation.<br /><br />Let’s take the Habsburg dynasty in Europe as an example, from the 13th to the 20th century, extending its reach from Austria to Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, to Belgium, Spain, even Mexico. The Habsburg monarchs during this reign apparently displayed greater wisdom, insight and cultural sensitivity than our current government, or in particular its blogging tory base, seeking to adapt to and embrace the culture, laws and traditions of various subject nations, be they Flemish or Andalusian rather than seek to extend Austrian cultural domination and assimilation. And the same effort at cultural adaptation was expected of their state officials, bureaucrats, functionaries and justices – some lazy cultural reprobate who couldn’t be bothered to master a foreign tongue and familiarize himself with the customs of a subject people could hardly be expected to be assigned office and authority over such people.dupmarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17421029228908771593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-63937618631340557522010-05-19T05:37:42.507-04:002010-05-19T05:37:42.507-04:00It certainly is curious to note Liberals arguing a...It certainly is curious to note Liberals arguing against the principle of bilingualism for one of the key institutions of the Canadian state – this was supposed to be one of your articles of faith. The blogging tory opposition to the proposal is understandable, they have reverted to their Reform roots on this and every other issue related to Quebec, to national unity, language rights, and so on, letting loose in their blogs with every hateful comment imaginable pertaining to “French language crap”, “ pandering to Quebec”, of how the French language is irrelevant to Canada, of lesser value than Hindi or some Croatian dialect, how they would like to show Quebec the door, not dilly-dally either, and bring to fruition what the Bloc has not been able to achieve to date. We thus apparently have two separatist parties in Parliament, one of which holds the responsibility of governance of this country.<br /><br />Leaving aside the issue of cultural dominance of one or the other culture in separate regions, we should note we are discussing the responsibilities of the federal state and its bilingual nature, that is the linguistic duality of Canada as a whole, not whether such duality is reflected in each and every region or whether it even should be.<br /><br />And again on this score, there is misrepresentation in this discussion on the linguistic character and rights afforded in specific regions, in particular the broadside directed against Quebec worthy of the least informed blogging tory Ann Coulterish mouth foaming diatribe, to the effect the English language has no status, no recognition, and no legal existence in Quebec.<br /><br />Do we inhabit the same universe? Taking into consideration language laws and policies of cultural protection, English has the same status in Quebec as French does in Ontario and certainly far more rights or recognition than is afforded the French language elsewhere in Western Canada. You can register a birth, get married, divorced, have a funeral, obtain a driver’s license, obtain a license in English as real estate agent, insurance broker or adjuster, communicate with your provincial or municipal government, obtain publications from the provincial government, pursue an education from primary to university level, obtain healthcare services in local clinics and hospitals, all in English, subject of course to restrictions largely prevalent in English Canada as well.<br /><br />Now are the same services, and levels of service, available to francophones in Regina, Calgary and Vancouver? We see from the discussion of the issue on numerous blogging tory blogs how they are prepared to run francophones out of town should they show their face in Western Canada, how they show up on sovereignist blogs in Quebec to crow about Anglo supremacy, how they French language is doomed, doomed in North America, that resistance is futile, etc., what pleasure they take in crushing and denying French language rights is Saskatchewan, but enough.dupmarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17421029228908771593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-10839887790638594092010-05-19T02:03:08.744-04:002010-05-19T02:03:08.744-04:00Shiner,
The concern here is that the lack of Fren...Shiner,<br /><br />The concern here is that the lack of French in Western Canada would mean that a judge couldn't fully immerse themselves in the language. As such, they would not be able to use French outside of a classroom. The result of this is that a lot of our best legal minds from Western Canada would likely not make the grade. Obviously I don't speak for all Westerners, but I'm pretty politically in tune to what is going on out here.<br /><br />In the event that this bill is simply symbolic in nature the opposition isn't "to all things French". It's to the idea that we make another move to make Quebec happy. There is a general consensus--obviously with some disagreement--that Quebec takes a lot, demands a lot, and doesn't really give much back. I think that if the bill is symbolic Westerners, including myself, find themselves thinking that we are making another move to appease Quebec that greatly inconveniences us, and for what?<br /><br />My final issue is this: none of us--who I would assume are engaged and politically astute, for the most part--actually know if this is a symbolic bill or not. Perhaps a little more debate was required; however, standing against this bill is sure to provoke the ire of the Quebecois so it is politically a hand grenade.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15207861101065195385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-83689590767416936042010-05-18T17:44:23.248-04:002010-05-18T17:44:23.248-04:00FYI re: Belgium:
The Court consists of thirty jud...<a href="http://www.network-presidents.eu/IMG/pdf/CourDeCassationRepliesToQuestionnaireMarch2008Belgium-2.pdf" rel="nofollow">FYI re: Belgium</a>:<br /><br /><em>The Court consists of thirty judges (including the first president, a president and six sectional presidents). Half the judges fall within the French, the other half within the Dutch language divisions, six of each being bilingual by law.3 Judges must also provide proof of a knowledge of German. Five judges must be recruited from judges in social courts (labour courts and tribunals, auditorat or auditorat général.</em>Marky Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00465497859724027212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-45733285517223356622010-05-18T17:19:17.706-04:002010-05-18T17:19:17.706-04:00There is a regional basis to Court selections. The...<i>There is a regional basis to Court selections. The french speaker would have to be from the west.</i> -Shiner<br /><br />There is no large pool of French speakers in Western Canada. Nor is there any practical need for one.<br /><br />So now you would place the onerous burden that our brightest minds take several years off from their careers to acquire a level of proficiency in French equal to professional interpreters.<br /><br />Beside being wholly unrealistic, it is close to unworkable.<br /><br />Bill C-232 would ensure that only a small, lower quality pool of applicants would be available to sit on out SC. No thanks.Gerrard787https://www.blogger.com/profile/14313108762970361402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-72086683949075395062010-05-18T17:16:23.011-04:002010-05-18T17:16:23.011-04:00Francophones are heard because they're not for...Francophones are heard because they're not forced to speak English. That was the point of the changes that were made and I believe that access is there as it is. Their lawyers can speak French (or English) and those judges who don't take it all in will rely on translation services, as they do with all the dramatically more important written materials that are filed with the court.<br /><br />We're taling a few minutes of oral argument. Everything else in the case up to that point will have been translated from the trial court on.Marky Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00465497859724027212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-26454863237282852042010-05-18T17:03:27.011-04:002010-05-18T17:03:27.011-04:00Marky, I don't understand your continued focus...Marky, I don't understand your continued focus on official bilingualism vs. demographics. This is an issue of official bilingualism. Heck, it doesn't get more official than the Supreme Court. If a Court of anglophones cannot fulfill their duty for a francophone (as the substance of BCL's post suggests) how can you say that francophones are heard at the SCC? This doesn't even have to be abstract, I'm sure I'm not the only one who has worked through a translator, it isn't pleasant.Shinerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08016613530584645357noreply@blogger.com