Air canada loses lawsuit over stewardess failing to speak in "mother tongue"

[James Joyce]

Techman, your statement that Americans can't understand the issues in Quebec is false. A person does need to live in Afghanistan, or be a woman, to understand their suffering by the Taliban. Of course not.

Cheers,

Merlot

To understand on the most superficial level you are correct but to fully understand what it means to be a minority or to reside in a place being a full time resident, you must live it day in and day out.

You forget the responsibility and fault of the English before 1982. To answer your question, no language or culture has the right to eliminate the other.

ENGLISH ONLY:

However, what I don't understand is you almost never seem to make reference to the very long dominance of the English or the removal of protections of the French language that were fair for all. Right, that is not the here and now, but it is part of the main cause of the here and now. So why aren't you more circumspect about the WHOLE situation? No one can resolve a situation if they don't deal with the cause as well as the current condition, especially with something like Bill 101 and it's effect.

Remember that for the last 250 years or so it was the English who dominated the top levels of government in Canada who set up this whole situation through their choices.

Cheers,

Merlot

Are you assuming what the cause and fault was of the English dominance in Quebec or has someone influenced you as to the cause and fault, please be honest (not that you haven't been) with us here?

 

[James Joyce]

I have decided to stop posting. You are now free to take whatever shots at me you wish, I will not respond. I have expended enough time on this, and in face of such obtuseness, I throw my hands up.

I'm truly sorry that you have decided to stop posting in this thread and on this subject. I think it a loss of understanding on both sides of this debate. Your views and understandings on this topic are what should be challenged IMO as I firmly believe that you are sincere but I disagree on some very basic principles that I was hoping to arrive at once a common understanding of the historical and human fact are dispensed with.

Please note: you may notice I have edited my post this morning. Last night, I was egged on by both Techman and James Joyce to respond to some things and I stayed up to do so. This morning, I found a few things I could have done better and I refined the post. These changes are only in response to posts made prior to this one. I still intend to keep silent on anything posted after this post.

Not sure how to take your chosen expression, "egged on by both Techman and James Joyce". I can't speak for another but I was only trying to open debate to a better understanding, on BOTH sides, on a topic that I have some (not all) disagreements with your statements.

 

[evillethings]

lots of posts in this thread... mustve been a handful of suspensions coming from this topic.

at the end of the day... good for ppl standing up for their civil rights, whether is race, language or other...

 

[anon_vlad]

I think that Techman's question about the right of French Quebecois to dominate is part of a larger issue.

I don't think that the government should do anything much except provide services. I don't any of my money spent on social engineering. Don't tell me what to eat, to wear a helmet bicycling and don't advertise what a great job the government is doing.

Fix the roads and the hospitals firstly before you spend any of my money telling me which language to use.

 

[EagerBeaver]

Recently I went to a Chinese restaurant and the waitress couldn't speak a lick of English or French, so I painfully put aside my inferiority complex and with a series of hand gestures and flapping arms to mime various animals I ordered what I wanted. I felt so violated that this Chinese woman didn't speak the language of my birth.

This reminds me of the time many years ago when I took a client out for lunch at a popular Chinese restaurant in New York City's Chinatown which is a few blocks from the courthouses on Foley Square. It was one of those authentic type Chinese restaurants servicing mainly Asians, but a few odd Caucasians, including both tourists and attorneys/others from the Courts wearing suits (the latter group including my client and I), also wandered in. The restaurant had two menus, one for the Chinese natives, and one for the Caucasian minority, the latter containing so called "Americanized" Chinese food, like Chow Mein.

My client, a self anointed "foodie" who fancied himself an expert on authentic style Asian cuisines, asked me to get him the "Authentic" Chinese menu. Our waiter, who appeared to be a young, off the boat Asian in his early 20s, responded to my pointing to the pile of the "Authentic" menus for the Asians by saying, "no! no! no! menu for Chinese people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" I then told the rude young snip that I knew it was the menu for Chinese people, but I wanted to see it any way. The waiter then said to me, in a voice that bordered on hostility, "Nooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Menu for CHINESE PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" He then thrust two menus containing "Americanized Chinese food" into the hands of my client and I. I then handed the menus back, and asked for the menu "for Chinese people". At this point I was getting upset, the manager saw this and came over, and he instructed the rude young snip to give us the "authentic" menus. The snip reluctantly complied.

We then ordered several dishes off the authentic menu, which was in Chinese, with English subtitles that only gave you a very vague idea of what you were ordering. The food was GREAT, and cheap. New York City's Chinatown is the only place in NYC where you can dine on great food and not have your wallet get raped.

 

[Techman]

Quebecers of French expression were de facto dominated by the Anglo-British establishment since before Confederation. This in part was exacerbated by the Roman Catholic clergy, holder of the keys to higher education. They preferred the status quo, which kept their churches and coffers full. In the meantime, membership in the better clubs, positions on boards of trade, banks and exchanges were held by the English. They were known as "The Establishment".

Is it any surprise that the Anglo-British establishment was in control? They did win the war after all, did they not while France abandoned their settlers? So where is your outrage that should rightly be directed at the Catholic Church that did more to keep French Canadians from bettering themselves than anyone else ever did, before or since? And if that left the higher business and social positions open, well someone had to move in and do the job didn't they? Someone had to put this province on the road to advancement. If it had been left to the church, French Quebecers would have remained farmers. But I don't see you putting any blame there.

And you really don't see the problem with the education restrictions, do you? It isn't the Anglo Quebecers who are being discriminated against. They can send their children to whatever school they want. It's the French that are limited in choice. It is the French who are being kept from having the choice to educate their children in the language they choose. Every year there are cases brought before the courts by French families who want that choice. I guess you are fine with having your own people discriminated against while their political leaders choose to educate their children in ENGLISH PRIVATE SCHOOLS with your tax dollars. Well I'm not fine with that. I think everyone has the right to choose.

Merlot, I loved your explanation that "they had no choice". Really? Then I guess you could apply that to a number of situations around the world. Here are some examples of how such a reason or excuse could be corrupted:

How about China's method of population control which in some cases consists of sticking a syringe of formaldehyde into a baby's head while it is being born, to terminate it before it is able to take it's first breath? Or their policy of forced abortion and sterilization. I'm sure that they could also claim "we had no choice because our population was getting out of control".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy

And I guess that Islamic extremists could also claim "we have no choice" when it comes to terrorist attacks against the US, including 911. It is, afterall, the only method they have to fight against what they consider to be "American Imperialism". It isn't like they can fight the powerful US military-industrial complex on a level playing field because they wouldn't stand a chance. So they fight the only way they can. They have no choice.

And even Nazi Germany can make the claim "we had no choice" when it comes to the Holocaust. They could claim that they were losing control of their country's economy to the Jews and had no choice but to eradicate them to save their culture and race.

There are always choices, Merlot. The problem is that the right ones do not always have the exact result you want. Sometimes making the right choice means not making the choice that supports your own cause to the detriment of all others. Sometimes it means doing the right thing, not the thing that benefits you the most. Sometimes it means taking a chance and working for the best outcome for everyone. Sometimes it means working together instead of against each other. Sometimes it means making compromises. Saying "we have no choice" is not a reason and it's not acceptable. It's a cop-out. It's taking the easy way out.

And as a counterpoint to sapman's personal anecdotes, here's something that's a little more current and shows that certain attitudes are still alive and well in Quebec but also shows a ray of hope in that most people no longer want to accept that sort of behaviour: click on the link for the rest of the story.

An incident took place yesterday that reinforced my faith in Quebecers. It
proves what I’ve been saying all along - most people in this province are not
racist xenophobes.


I was on my way home from the passport office, where I spent two hours of my
life I’ll never get back inhaling stale, sweaty air and being coughed on by a
six year old...which means I may have been


I decided to stop for a coffee and it was pretty crowded. My turn arrives and
since I frequent this particular coffee shop, I know that the girl behind the
counter is an Anglophone.


I think it’s silly for two anglos to speak French to each other so when she
said "Bonjour, Hi," I ordered a coffee in English.


At which point I hear some guy behind me say, "ici on parle francais."


I turned around to see who offered up this bit of unsolicited information and
spotted a man looking at me.


Since I loathe a buttinsky on the best of days, I cocked an eyebrow and gave
him a frosty "Pardon?"


He repeated "ici on parle francais"….at which point I went off on him in
rapid-fire French.

http://www.cjad.com/blog/KimFraserShow/blogentry.aspx?BlogEntryID=10264142

While I agree with her wholeheartedly that MOST Quebecers are not racist xenophobes, the problem is that those who are not are afraid to make their views known and those who are, are likely the ones who will form Quebec's next government and are the ones with the most power.

I should add that while this was an isolated incident in the CJAD personality's life, I listened to the show today and from the people who called in, it is not that isolated at all but actually quite common.

She also had an interesting show last week dealing with one of the incidents mentioned in this thread. Her opinion that day was not well received by her on-air callers or those who posted replies to her blog.
http://www.cjad.com/blog/KimFraserShow/blogentry.aspx?BlogEntryID=10261952

 

[Merlot]

Bonjour à tous,

Pour être sûr que je suis clair, je suis d'accord avec Techman et tous les gens qui disent la loi 101 est excessive socialement et culturellement. Une loi qui est équilibré pour rendre les citoyens aient accès égal aux services essentiels, la possibilité d'une activité irréprochable, profiter des lieux de divertissement est une bonne loi.

Mais le projet de loi 101 est très déséquilibrée, irrationnelle, et ridicule. Les dommages-intérêts la loi les objectifs cités précédemment, ainsi que décourager le développement économique et affectent le niveau de vie. Quand une loi tente de réguler tout dans les moindres détails il crée sociaux, culturels, économiques une dictature politique. Et quand la loi force un groupe ethnique à être éduqués dans des conditions restreintes favorisant un groupe ethnique différent, il est xénophobe. Cela a été mon avis toujours.

Mon argument contre certains membres a été la réticence à reconnaître les causes de la loi 101 et les abus, par les deux parties, et l'échec d'examiner des solutions coopératives.

Nul besoin de vivre à Montréal pour comprendre les problèmes que j'ai cités.

Hello all,

To be sure I am clear, I agree with Techman and all the people who say Bill 101 is excessive socially and culturally. A law that is balanced to make sure citizens have equal access to essential services, the opportunity to conduct proper business, enjoy entertainment venues is a good law. In a bi-cultural city like Montreal, the law must guarantee bi-cultural access, encourage bi-cultural growth, and bi-culturalism itself.

But Bill 101 is very unbalanced, irrational, and ridiculous. The law damages the goals cited previously, as well as discouraging economic development and affecting the standard of living. When any law tries to regulate everything to the last detail it creates social, cultural, economic an political dictatorship. And when it forces one ethnic group to be educated in restricted conditions favoring a different ethnic group it is Xenophobic. This has been my view always.

My argument against some members has been the unwillingness to recognize the causes of Bill 101 and the abuses, by both sides, and the failure to examine cooperative solutions.

No person needs to live in Montreal to understand the problems I have cited.

Cheers,

Merlot

 

[Techman]

Merlot, nowhere in my post did I say that you support or condone anything that I referred to. The reason I posted that was to show you how your argument of "they had no other choice" is neither a valid reason nor a valid excuse. Extremists can always use "we had no other choice" to justify their actions. Even the perpetrator of this week's terrible events in Norway could basically use the same excuse.

That excuse is not valid. Not when dealing with those terrible events I listed or to justify what the French are doing here in Quebec.

If the English had the right to take over then why not the French.

Once again someone is trying to put words in my mouth. Where in my post did I say that the English had the RIGHT to take over anything? They moved into a void created by the Catholic Church in Quebec. Should they have left the province/country leaderless or left it to the control of the church who only had, and continue to have, their own interests at heart? They did what had to be done. They took the opportunity left open by the church and made the best of it.

When the British won over the French, they allowed the French colonists to remain here after they had been abandoned by France. They could just as easily forced them out or eradicated them. They did neither. The church damaged the ability of the French to advance in business and society more than the English ever did.

 

[Techman]

No accusation was made or inferred thus no retraction is required or possible. I pointed out the flaw in your argument about "they had no choice" showing how it could be used to justify any number of heinous acts. You are the one who made that statement as justification for the language laws here in Quebec, no one else. I am just showing you how little validity that reason has.

In the interest of peace, I've clarified my post to indicate that I in no way inferred that you support such heinous acts.

 

[Mod 11]

Techman, while I see you're trying to make a point by the absurd, you're pushing it quite far in this case. There is a line marking the difference between killing people and enacting laws to protect cultural identity. You crossed it.

I am not forcing you to do so but, it would show moderation, a desire to keep the peace and understanding of people's sensitivities, if you would delete these examples and replace them with more relevant ones that are not so extreme. I repeat, provocation isn't a good discussion tool when the goal is an intelligent discussion.

------------

I am not forcing Techman to remove these "over the edge" comments because they are an opinion and, even if we don't agree, they are his opinion and he's entitled to express it. It is also evident here he's trying to make a proof by the absurd. Not using comparison with such high impact would have been a better choice but they're not breaking any rules.

------------

Merlot, as explained above, I don't see Techman putting you in the same class of people as those committing these atrocities. It's a bad choice of references intended to show a causality link, nothing more.

Thanks

 

[James Joyce]

The church damaged the ability of the French to advance in business and society more than the English ever did.

Bravo for saying this Techman !

Almost no French Catholic Quebecer would want to place blame on the Catholic Church because that would mean that they had to blame themselves for following the doctrine like sheep just how the church told them to run their lives.

It's easier to blame the English who just moved in to fill a void that existed, which was to make money.

 

[Techman]

M11. sometimes it takes a shock to make people open their eyes. I in no way inferred that Merlot supported those acts. I have edited my post to indicate that no accusations were intended.

 

[eastender]

Actions and Words

Bravo for saying this Techman !

Almost no French Catholic Quebecer would want to place blame on the Catholic Church because that would mean that they had to blame themselves for following the doctrine like sheep just how the church told them to run their lives.

It's easier to blame the English who just moved in to fill a void that existed, which was to make money.

Actions and words JJ. French Catholic Quebecers abandoned the Catholic church very quickly in the post Duplessis era and never returned. They went away from having priests and nuns teaching their young as quickly as it was possible to find sufficient replacement teachers. Finally they changed the school board structure and governance from confessional to linguistic.

Their actions spoke much louder than their words ever could.

 

[Techman]

They didn't find replacement teachers that fast. I graduated from Catholic high school in 1974 and we had brothers and nuns working as teachers in our school. That continued right up until the school boards changed from religious based to language based many years later.

 

[James Joyce]

Actions and words JJ. French Catholic Quebecers abandoned the Catholic church very quickly in the post Duplessis era and never returned. They went away from having priests and nuns teaching their young as quickly as it was possible to find sufficient replacement teachers. Finally they changed the school board structure and governance from confessional to religious.

Their actions spoke much louder than their words ever could.

I'm sorry EE but I don't think that I'm the only one who cannot decrypt this or any of your posts.

Hold on a sec, I'm going to put on CNN so I can listen to the diatribe of a politician. Oh yeah it's the same thing.

 

[Mod 11]

... I have edited my post to indicate that no accusations were intended.

Thanks for doing so.

 

[eastender]

Changed. Sorry multi-tasking.

 

[Lovemaker]

I'm sorry EE but I don't think that I'm the only one who cannot decrypt this or any of your posts.

Hold on a sec, I'm going to put on CNN so I can listen to the diatribe of a politician. Oh yeah it's the same thing.

So true dude. Not only this, he has a bold heading for every single post he makes as if he's giving a power point presentation on Econometrics and Market Feasibility at McGill University. Very corny stuff, no one is impressed. Some may even view it as condescending. I can only imagine how socially awkward some people must be in real life.

 

[eastender]

They didn't find replacement teachers that fast. I graduated from Catholic high school in 1974 and we had brothers and nuns working as teachers in our school. That continued right up until the school boards changed from religious based to language based many years later.

And how quickly do you suggest it could have been accomplished? Given the following constraints - unions protected the jobs - teachers were tenured after two years. Catholic boards required Catholic teachers.

 

[CLOUD 500]

You are usually one of the most respectful and compassionate people here. But, you suggest survival of the fittest should control this situation. Do you truly understand your meaning? The difference between people and animals is compassion for all people. It is caring for the sick, not leaving others to die.

The words I used may sound harsh. But I will explain. The reason I say that is because it is the French people who can keep the language and culture alive. They got to teach it to their children, speak it among themselves. If they do this the language and culture will very much stay alive. Obviously the language will not be the dominant one. But the issue here is that they want French to dominate all other languages.

You say if the French cannot survive in Quebec without Bill 101, their language and culture should die. With that principle of logic, since the French currently have the political and population advantage in Quebec without Bill 101, then the English language and culture should die there. If you believe in your principle, then you do not have the right to protest current social conditions in Quebec. If you believe in survival of the fittest regarding Quebec, then you should get out. Ridiculous thought, isn't it.

But there is a flaw in your logic. For instance the English have not artificially changed the plane field so that English dominates all other languages. It simply does. If things were left to progress naturally, English would dominate for obvious reasons.

You say "English is the business language of the world." You imply a principle here too. Since one language is dominate in business any other language is weaker and should die. In principle, if Chinese, Russian, Hindi, or Spanish become the dominate language in business, then English should die too. Your principles are totalitarian, not democratic or compasionate. It sounds close to ethnic and racial superiority theories. They are very close to the most frightening ideologies of history.

Again my principles is not totalitarian it is actually democratic. What the Bill 101 is represents a totalitarian mentality. The English has not put an artificial control to maintain the dominance of English this is something the French of done. Furthermore the bill is unconstitutional it goes against the human rights of freedom of expression which is why they used the notwithstanding clause to override this.

Let us say for argument sake that Chinese was the business language. In that case me being an anglophone it will be up to me and my people to keep the language and culture alive. I will teach it to my children, I will speak English with my family and friends. You see how the people can keep a language alive. Obviously it would not dominate but it would exist. Same applies to Chinese immigrants or any other ethnic group. Do you think these people really stop speaking their own language among themselves or let go of their culture entirely? The answer is no. The French could have very well done the same. But they wanted the language to dominate all others. It goes with the mentality that one language or race is superior then another.

Do you truly expect other cultures to give up because English is the business language of the world. Do you truly expect the French in Quebec to die without fighting because there are more English in Canada. I think you are allowing your frustration and anger to overwhelm you.

The French want to survive, so too the English. Survival based on overall dominance is not moral. It is cold-blooded inhumanity. I'm sure you have more morality and compassion than that.

Of course not. But also implementing a bill to ensure the dominance of one language will make a lot of people angry. The French can survive as I said before by teaching it to their children and speaking it among themselves. But they want the language to dominate all others. The French represent your view of cold blooded inhumanity. The English has never enforced a language on others. It just happened that English was dominant for obvious reasons.

Remember, the national supreme court of Canada decided Bill 101 is legal, and it permits the minimum freedom of speech as long as English is taught, and English is available to the public wherever there is a need. If you let the FLQ dictate morality and solutions, then we should all become like animals and kill each other. Good luck.

Another poster has already answered this paragraph. But you are wrong. It is neither legal and is considered unconstitutional. But they used the notwithstanding clause to bypass the human right of freedom of expression.