Canada Kicks Ass
English signs in Quebec

REPLY

Previous  1 ... 7  8  9  10  11  12  13 ... 18  Next



ShepherdsDog @ Fri Feb 08, 2008 10:54 pm

The French often hear German accents......usually telling them to surrender. :lol:

   



fire_i @ Fri Feb 08, 2008 11:53 pm

Congio :

Ban English? Hell no! The goal of things like bill 101 is not to destroy the non-French presence in Quebec, but to encourage French. While some people certainly do believe protection of French goes through repression of other languages, the immense majority, myself included, would rather say the point is to give French the foreground while keeping a place for the other languages - especially English, notably in the mostly English-speaking areas of the province, like on parts of Montreal island and parts of the Outaouais region.

See that's why I got nothing against the principle of Bill 101 that makes it impossible for a child not to learn expert-level French. I would deeply disagree with a measure that would make English inaccessible since we'd be restricting rights, but I'm not upset by how the law "forces" people to learn much French - it's fairly much an added duty. Big difference between that and a removed right.

I compare the need to learn French for those educated in the Québécois system to the need to learn counting in base 10 in every occidental society. Theoretically speaking, one cannot go through the education system without learning that, and yet nobody questions it even if, heck, why wouldn't someone rather want their children to count in base 13 or whatever? I know the comparison is sloppy, but in both cases, it's just a knowledge the society considers necessary - and to provide it, it doesn't even actually remove access to any 'opposed' knowledge, it just favors the main one to give it the most optimal conditions possible.

Thing is that many believe you can't learn English in Quebec if you're born from French parents... not sure where that belief came from, but it's off the mark. Sure the law gives French a marked advantage by making it the mandatory language in which study, but learning at least functional English is also necessary and even *very* strongly encouraged, including by providing everyone much more advanced English classes and programs that actually do near immersion. Again, it's not that access to English, or any other language for that matter, is restricted - it's that it's somewhat overshadowed by how the system gives French all the latitude it needs and makes it mandatory while everything else is "only" strongly encouraged. (PS to RUEZ : I hope what I'm saying here helps you in particular understand the situation since your perception appears a bit skewed - though I have to apologize for hardly making sense right now as I'm really tired and am having a hard time correctly summing up what I mean)

So yeah... if parents really want their children to learn near-perfect English, they easily can get that from the education system in Quebec - it's just that their children also have to learn near-perfect French regardless since it's considered a necessary knowledge, much like something as apparently natural as counting in base 10 or knowing the alphabet as we use it in our daily lives. And to make sure that knowledge is well-transmitted, attending a French school is made mandatory. (Anyway I find the split between English and French schools to be BS, even though it's perfectly understandable... in an ideal world the system would definitely not be split like that, but that's a whole other matter).

Tman1 Tman1:
Sorry what? Who conquered Quebec? You were granted your language and religion and now you demand the rest of Canada learn French for the sake of 7 million people mainly concentrated in one area? Sorry chump, doesn't work that way and the stupid comments like yours makes me not want this country to be bilingual already than it is.


Simplistic millitaristic view. The conquest happened 250 years ago. Get over it. Things change. The political situation is not entirely dependant of the results of an ancient war. Who won and who lost has now essentially become irrelevant - heck the countries that won and lost actually have *nothing* to do with either the province or country we are now talking about, at least directly (Anyway one could even argue that Canada lost that day with England as winner, or that Canada didn't even exist and that that battle wasn't part of Canada's history but rather of part of the history of a pre-Canada entity, and all kind of other perfectly defendable opinions of that type).

The situation at hand is infinitely more complex than the results of a war that occured centuries ago. Each time I hear someone mention the 1760 battle of the plains of Abraham as the reason why Québécois should be glad we haven't been forcefully submitted into cultural oblivion, I cringe. Hope for alternate history all you want, but that's now how things went over, that's not what we're facing right now, and that's not what we should base ourselves on for the future.

   



Tman1 @ Sat Feb 09, 2008 12:12 am

fire_i fire_i:
Simplistic millitaristic view. The conquest happened 250 years ago. Get over it. Things change. The political situation is not entirely dependant of the results of an ancient war. Who won and who lost has now essentially become irrelevant - heck the countries that won and lost actually have *nothing* to do with either the province or country we are now talking about, at least directly (Anyway one could even argue that Canada lost that day with England as winner, or that Canada didn't even exist and that that battle wasn't part of Canada's history but rather of part of the history of a pre-Canada entity, and all kind of other perfectly defendable opinions of that type).

The situation at hand is infinitely more complex than the results of a war that occured centuries ago. Each time I hear someone mention the 1760 battle of the plains of Abraham as the reason why Québécois should be glad we haven't been forcefully submitted into cultural oblivion, I cringe. Hope for alternate history all you want, but that's now how things went over, that's not what we're facing right now, and that's not what we should base ourselves on for the future.

That post was more in conjunction with the other guy's post rather than actual opinion or matter and no, its not a "simplistic militaristic" view, its the truth, its history, it will always be there, get over it.
$1:
Who won and who lost has now essentially become irrelevant - heck the countries that won and lost actually have *nothing* to do with either the province or country we are now talking about, at least directly (Anyway one could even argue that Canada lost that day with England as winner, or that Canada didn't even exist and that that battle wasn't part of Canada's history but rather of part of the history of a pre-Canada entity, and all kind of other perfectly defendable opinions of that type).

Huh? Canada lost that day with England? Do you mean the American Revolution? and country status is a semantic point, the people lived in the area are the same regardless of who they are. Not clear what you mean.
$1:
The situation at hand is infinitely more complex than the results of a war that occured centuries ago. Each time I hear someone mention the 1760 battle of the plains of Abraham as the reason why Québécois should be glad we haven't been forcefully submitted into cultural oblivion, I cringe. Hope for alternate history all you want, but that's now how things went over, that's not what we're facing right now, and that's not what we should base ourselves on for the future

Then the next time I hear some Quebcois tell Canadians to be bilingual because they feel insecure and inferior and rely on their fascist bill 101 and keep saying they are losing their "culture and language" I cringe and puke. I don't like to fall back on "history" but take a look at other cultures that were assimilated, annihilated, and expunged because the other "cultures" that took them over didn't give a rats ass who they were conquering. Must of have been some benefit to be in the age of enlightenment (1760) where people actually attempted to think "rationally", instead of the name of god.

Alternate history? No, I call it luck.

   



commanderkai @ Sat Feb 09, 2008 12:44 am

MacDonaill MacDonaill:

Lastly, there is no ban on English signs in Quebec. There is a ban on unilingual signs in any language other than French. English appears in signs all over Quebec, as long as French is there first and foremost.


I'm not sure what Quebec you're in, but there are ALOT on unilingual signs...all in French of course

   



RUEZ @ Sat Feb 09, 2008 12:57 am

commanderkai commanderkai:
MacDonaill MacDonaill:

Lastly, there is no ban on English signs in Quebec. There is a ban on unilingual signs in any language other than French. English appears in signs all over Quebec, as long as French is there first and foremost.


I'm not sure what Quebec you're in, but there are ALOT on unilingual signs...all in French of course
He's not disputing that. He's saying there is a ban on unilingual signs of a language other than French.

   



Benoit @ Sat Feb 09, 2008 10:12 am

kenmore kenmore:
and you are a lawyer I take it... suffice to say french right to language is guaranteed in Ontario...when dealing with government....


You will end up in limbo dealing with a bad translator/interpreter paid by the government.

   



Congio @ Sat Feb 09, 2008 10:15 am

Tman1 Tman1:
Sorry what? Who conquered Quebec?


So Quebec is a conquered place... Well, if I would live in a conquered place I would want it to stop being conquered. Separatism?

Yes Quebec was conquered. But that was 300 years ago. Do you have the mind of an person from the XVIII century?!

Today Canada is not about English Domination. It's about cooperation of all the cultures. Mainly English and French. And because Canada is officially a bilingual state, the English should not dominate the politics. The French have a saying in their future too.

Canada isn't about conquering one a another. English ruling over French.
[align=center]
CANADA is about cooperation.

COOPERATION
[/align]

You know what cooperation means? It means that two persons, two cultures, two countries work together and respect each other. Just by saying that Quebec is a conquered nation you showed disrespect for Quebec and Canada.


I am not separatist. I'm from Ottawa, and I'm very pro federal. I think I know Canadian History quite well. I say that French should have an equal status in Canada with English. Officially (in theory) it does, but in practise it doesn't. French freely used only in the East, English all over the country. If Canada would be fully bilingual all over there would be no problem.

U need to educate yourself in being fair with your partners. I am at a University, and you?

...................................................................................................................................................

Pimpbrewski Pimpbrewski:
So, homeboy decides to show up all of sudden :lol: PDT_Armataz_01_34

Agree, French should not be forced on anyone in the ROC.

Neither should English in QC I guess, but, it could always be part of it in some ways.


I never said it should be forced. But English is forced in Quebec, eh? There are two ways

- Stop forcing english in Quebec and no one will force the ROC to French or,
- Kepp forcing English in Quebec and start forcing French in the ROC.

I say number 1.
Bilingualism should nor be forced. It should be encouraged.

   



Benoit @ Sat Feb 09, 2008 10:27 am

Congio Congio:
COOPERATION


With cooperation comes the opportunity to enrich yourself and your country by specializing that is, by not speaking the same languages than your countrymen.

   



Congio @ Sat Feb 09, 2008 10:31 am

what do you mean?

You should understand your countrymen first, foreigners latter.

   



Benoit @ Sat Feb 09, 2008 10:40 am

Congio Congio:
what do you mean?

You should understand your countrymen first, foreigners latter.


To understand your countrymen, you need only one language in common, not two, not three.

   



Congio @ Sat Feb 09, 2008 10:48 am

But if your country has two official languages? And think of Canada as a union of two countries- English Canada and French Canada. Because Canada in all the matters is such a union.

Ok. So lets make French the only official languge of Canada...

No? Why? Oooo.. You don't speak French? So why English should be the only official? And I don't care it's the language of the majority, or that Quebec was Conquered.

If every one was bilingual we wouldn't have this discussion. No one would give a shit if the signs in Quebec would be in English or in French. I don't.

   



Congio @ Sat Feb 09, 2008 10:51 am

Hey, if people in Switzerland can be bi or tri lingual (French German Italian) why Canadians can't be?

   



Benoit @ Sat Feb 09, 2008 11:12 am

Congio Congio:
Hey, if people in Switzerland can be bi or tri lingual (French German Italian) why Canadians can't be?


Canadians actually are bi or tri lingual (English, Mandarin, Spanish, Arabic, etc.) and that’s why they have a problem learning French as their fourth or fifth language.

   



Congio @ Sat Feb 09, 2008 11:56 am

What? lol.

I am tri lingual. English and Polish since birth, French I learnt. So tell me how is it I, who lives in Poland, could learn French, and someone who lives in Canada couldn't? What you said is no excuse.

Canadians should learn official and their native languages first, others after. That is what I did.

Canadians are mostly unilingual: English or French. If they are from immigrant families they have a third language.

A Canadian should know first one of the two official languages then the second and after any other. (unless he or she is from an immigrant family where it is: one of the official languages, native language, second official language)

   



Congio @ Sat Feb 09, 2008 12:01 pm

I think a bilingual Canadian is a true Canadian.

If someone doesn't like Canada s bilingualism he is free to go to America, or Europe.

The idea that Canadians should learn other languages to enrich Canadian culture is good, but first such a Canadian must know his country s culture, which he can't know if he doesn't speak both official language at a communicative level.

   



REPLY

Previous  1 ... 7  8  9  10  11  12  13 ... 18  Next