Are Quebec's anglophones at risk?

[eastender]

Just Another Way.............

1. Comparing the growth of countries like the former Soviet Bloc and China for the past 20 years to that of Canada is like comparing apples to oranges.

2. Despite beeing the smallest country in the G8, Canada ranks 3rd in GDP per capita behind the US and the United Kingdom. Canada's GDP grew by 1.2% annually between 1990 and 1994, 3.7% between 1995 and 1999, and 3.1% between 2000 and 2004, placing it sixth, second and first in the three periods.

So, Canada is doing pretty well compared to other industrialized nations.

It looks like we also have economic "alarmists".

Your data is just another way of saying we are slipping further behind. Percentages mask facts. Nobody deposits percentages or buys with percentages. Cold hard cash is the issue.

Two entities. One with $1 000 000.00 generating fixed net revenues of 12% annually or $120 000.00, the other with $10 000 000.00 generating fixed net revenues of 10% annually or $1 000 000.00 annually. Percentage wise you will always show that the first is doing better than the second(12% is better than 10%) BUT will the first ever catch the second?

No. After ten years the first will have $2 200 000.00 while the second will have $20 000 000.00. The gap will have risen from $9 000 000.00 to $17 800 000.00 and will continue growing with time.

Not being an economic alarmist. Just saying that I fail to see the purpose of discussing who has the shinier or dirtier penny when others are making dollars.

 

[JustBob]

Your data is just another way of saying we are slipping further behind.

Behind whom?

Percentages mask facts. Nobody deposits percentages or buys with percentages. Cold hard cash is the issue.

Two entities. One with $1 000 000.00 generating fixed net revenues of 12% annually or $120 000.00, the other with $10 000 000.00 generating fixed net revenues of 10% annually or $1 000 000.00 annually. Percentage wise you will always show that the first is doing better than the second(12% is better than 10%) BUT will the first ever catch the second?

No. After ten years the first will have $2 200 000.00 while the second will have $20 000 000.00. The gap will have risen from $9 000 000.00 to $17 800 000.00 and will continue growing with time.

I understand your math but I still don't see your point. Once again "falling behind" whom?

Not being an economic alarmist. Just saying that I fail to see the purpose of discussing who has the shinier or dirtier penny when others are making dollars.

And I fail to see the purpose of comparing the economies of developing nations like the former Soviet Bloc and China, which have embraced "capitalism" only fairly recently, with the economy of Canada. Again, apples and oranges.

 

[eastender]

Behind Whom - Does it matter?

Behind whom?



I understand your math but I still don't see your point. Once again "falling behind" whom?



And I fail to see the purpose of comparing the economies of developing nations like the former Soviet Bloc and China, who have embraced "capitalism" only fairly recently, with the economy of Canada. Again, apples and oranges.

Behind those that are moving ahead and creating a wider gap.

The G8 is an arbitrary group that can be modified to include or exclude other countries. Should others be included how would Canada perform?

I will use a sports analogy. When the NHL was limited to the Original 6 teams
the worst that a team could finish was 6th or last. Today the NHL has 30 teams so the worst that a team could finish is 30th or last. Saying that finishing 29th today is better than 6th years ago because you are not last does not make much sense since previously there were 5 better teams whereas now there are 28 better teams.Nor does it matter if team A or B finished first or won the Stanley Cup because you still are 29th or 6th and not doing all that well.

Simply dollars are dollars. Does not matter if they are communist or capitalist dollars.Likewise economic power or growth.

Within the context of the Canada / Quebec discussion, my question would be "Does it matter which province does marginally better if as a group(team) we under perform?".

 

[JustBob]

Simply dollars are dollars. Does not matter if they are communist or capitalist dollars.Likewise economic power or growth.

Within the context of the Canada / Quebec discussion, my question would be "Does it matter which province does marginally better if as a group(team) we under perform?".

It matters because you're comparing teams from entirely different leagues. In economics, you simply cannot compare the exponential growth of economies of emerging markets to the "mature" economies of industrialized nations. It makes no sense whatsoever.

China can achieve yearly growth rates of 9 or 10%, but it's GDP per capita is roughly US $2,000 and ranks 105th in the world...

 

[eastender]

2006 Gdp

It matters because you're comparing teams from entirely different leagues. In economics, you simply cannot compare the exponential growth of economies of emerging markets to the "mature" economies of industrialized nations. It makes no sense whatsoever.

China can achieve yearly growth rates of 9 or 10%, but it's GDP per capita is roughly US $2,000 and ranks 105th in the world...

Comparing total GDP not per capita, in US dollars

2006 Canada 1.178 Trillion China 10.17 Trillion

in 2001 China's GDP was app 1 Trillion US Dollars.

Rather obvious which way the trend is going.

Which country is in a better position to sustain growth and services?

 

[ParChance]

eastender,

Sorry but the reason why the oil still exists in the Albertan tar sands is that at previous crude prices per barrel it wasn't economically feasible to extract the oil from the sand but at the avg. current prices is now affordable and comparable.

Here are the other main issues why the Canadian $ has continued it's upward spiral & a comparative listing of some Canadian commodities that the world needs that Canada has.

The years that I've chosen to compare are 2002 & 2007 when the Cdn$ was valued at $1.62 & $1.00 respectively versus the American $

2002 (Cdn$ @ $1.62US) 2007 (Cdn$ @ $1.00US)
​

Crude Oil 25.25 81.62​

Gold 350.00 738.00

Nickel 7262 32085

Copper 1536.00 7916.00

Silver 4.75 13.62

Wheat 4.50 8.65​

 

[eastender]

Back To Venture Capital

eastender,

Sorry but the reason why the oil still exists in the Albertan tar sands is that at previous crude prices per barrel it wasn't economically feasible to extract the oil from the sand but at the avg. current prices is now affordable and comparable.

Here are the other main issues why the Canadian $ has continued it's upward spiral & a comparative listing of some Canadian commodities that the world needs that Canada has.

The years that I've chosen to compare are 2002 & 2007 when the Cdn$ was valued at $1.62 & $1.00 respectively versus the American $

2002 (Cdn$ @ $1.62US) 2007 (Cdn$ @ $1.00US)
​

Crude Oil 25.25 81.62​

Gold 350.00 738.00

Nickel 7262 32085

Copper 1536.00 7916.00

Silver 4.75 13.62

Wheat 4.50 8.65​

And it goes back to Venture Capital, the cost of obtaining same and the net profits that stay in Canada. A 21st century version of the United Fruit Company is not very attractive.

 

[JustBob]

Comparing total GDP not per capita, in US dollars

2006 Canada 1.178 Trillion China 10.17 Trillion

in 2001 China's GDP was app 1 Trillion US Dollars.

Rather obvious which way the trend is going.

Which country is in a better position to sustain growth and services?

Nevermind, I give up.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Dear Ziggy,

I am saddened to read such a weak argument from an intelligent man with PhD in Political Science. Let me explain to you the difference between the NHL, a private institution, and the government of Quebec, a public institution. We as individuals have a choice on whether or not we want to support the NHL. By law, we have no choice but to pay taxes. As taxpayers, we directly support Quebec's civil service, even if we disagree with their policies.

It follows from this very fact that all taxpayers, including ethnics, anglos, French Quebecois, are mandated by law to support Quebec's civil service. Moreover, it follows that the government of Quebec, the employer of Quebec's civil service, should implement policies that properly diversify the labor force in Quebec's civil service to reflect all taxpayers who are subsidizing it.

Unfortunately, the government of Quebec is hopelessly incompetent on many fronts, including health and education. But the biggest issue of all, for me at least, is the institutionalized racism that permeates all levels of Quebec's civil service. It is a sad statement for our supposedly egalitarian society when the most important public institution in our province is lacking the proper representation of the constituent taxpayers.

You can claim that my term 'racism' is too strong. Perhaps institutionalized 'discrimination' is better. But these are just semantics since the end result is the same.

I applaud the Canadian Jewish Congress for putting out this paper on racism in Quebec. When you look at the facts, the government of Quebec has done nothing to diversify the Quebec civil service labor force. It's even more embarrassing when you compare the success of their policies to the success of the federal government's policies on employment equity. And, at least the federal government provides us with clear statistics and progress reports, citing that more needs to be done.

To sum up, your arguments are weak and your position is weak. It is easy to claim that there is no interest among ethnics to work for Quebec's civil service. This is a politically convenient argument, one that ignores the ugly truth that really lies behind the woeful under-representation of ethnics and other minorities in Qubec's civil service.

GG

GG,

The best available explanation is the most reasonable one until everyone is informed otherwise.

If you’re convinced that the Quebec government is guilty of institutional discrimination or racism, I’d then suggest you bring it to the Supreme Court and see for yourself how far you get. I’m reminding you that the plaintiff has the burden of the proof.

The NHL analogy was only presented as an example of sophism.

The Jewish Congress complained about the Quebec government not doing enough to attract members of their community in the civil service. This is very different from accusing it of discrimination.

PhD or not is irrelevant given that I didn’t present argument from authority.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Distinction

[...]we are significantly underachieving if compared to other countries.

So, Canada is doing pretty well compared to other industrialized nations.

"Doing pretty well" and "underachieving" are two different statements. One can do pretty well yet fail to achieve his potential.

 

[General Gonad]

The best available explanation is the most reasonable one until everyone is informed otherwise.

If you’re convinced that the Quebec government is guilty of institutional discrimination or racism, I’d then suggest you bring it to the Supreme Court and see for yourself how far you get. I’m reminding you that the plaintiff has the burden of the proof.

The Jewish Congress complained about the Quebec government not doing enough to attract members of their community in the civil service. This is very different from accusing it of discrimination.

Ziggy,

The politically convenient explanation is to blame it on lack of interest on the parts of ethnics and anglos. I am convinced that the Quebec government's miserable failure to diversify the Quebec civil service is due primarily to institutionalized discrimination/racism and the fact that they're completely incompetent on many fronts.

Again, the Jewish Congress complained about the Quebec government not doing enough to attract all minorities into the civil service, not just members of their community. I would leave it up to them to take the next step and bring this matter to the legal courts but we both know this will not happen.

GG

 

[sapman99]

Thank you T76.

Indeed, a little sanity here... I bring up past events, that have shown francophone communities getting the short end of the stick in Ontario. There was also the deportation of the Acadians. And (which I learned here, thanks) the erosion of the Franco-Albertans. As well, it cannot be denied that at one point, the English caste here in Montreal ruled despite being a minority.

These geographical and historical facts being taken into account, is it possible maybe that the French here decided that, taking the experience of other provinces (the emasculation-assimilation of the French communities there), realized: "hey, there is a huge sea of English around us. Maybe we better do something before it's too late"... Now, as T76 says, if we can just lower the tone a little bit and try to understand, then maybe we could talk about provisions of the laws which could stand improvement.

And about a unilingual Englsih Web site, for a restaurant which has many outlets in Québec, no, it is not acceptable. And techman, you just made a point: see, because OLF has no biz there, they have not bothered making a French version. I think this is pretty telling. And no, English is not the language of the Internet, or at least shouldn't be. The language of potential clients should. Also, when you make this argument (about English ruling the Internet), you scare me in loosening laguage laws. Sounds too much like English has a natural right to rule...

 

[General Gonad]

Show me the proper representation!

This consistent appeal to emotions with emotionally charged words... The English community is being eradicated! Quebeckers are racists! Facts show otherwise. Fact show that your community is alive and kicking although I recognize that there are some problems, that the situation could be better, that some linguistic laws here are just plain stupid (and don't protect the French culture at all) and we could talk about that, but if you indeed wish to talk about the effect of the law (which is different from the intent of the law) you'll have to begin by choosing words that don't paint your opponents as oppressors because it is simply not conducive to dialogue. It is conducive to me not even wanting to listen to you because you obviously have no respect for me. I'll admit some linguistic laws should be changed in this province when you admit my culture is not purposefully trying to destroy yours. It was trying to preserve itself - it may be true that it overdid things a little, but we can't begin to talk about that until we calm down, look at the actual situation and adjust our wording in consequence. Otherwise, like ZM said, you might as well bring your case to the Supreme Court, which would be the more appropriate forum to hear accusations like the ones your are making.

t76,

I happen to agree with most of what you've written. I think the term 'ethnic cleansing' is pure nonsense given that ethnics and anglos are enjoying vibrant communities here. I also think that Bill 101 empowers all minorities by forcing them to learn the official language of this province.

There is, however, an important caveat to all this. Facts may show that the ethnics and anglos are able to thrive despite their minority status in Quebec but there is still considerable room for improvement, especially in terms of their representation in the public sector. The focus in this thread has been too narrow, namely on linguistic laws. I do not have a problem with laws but show me that my tax dollars are supporting all Quebecers in the civil service, not just the powerful French Quebecois majority. Provide me with proof that there has been a tremendous improvement in integrating ethnics, anglos, disabled, aboriginal and women in Quebec's civil service. Don't tell me the politically convenient rhetoric that there is a lack of interest on behalf of these minorities to work for the civil service.

As far as appealing to the Supreme Court of Canada, history has shown that this is a dead end given that Quebec has a veto clause on these matters. Basically, the Quebec government does not need to abide by any Supreme Court decision on cultural matters or even employment law. This is why Ziggy's statement is pointless.

GG

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Dérapements, raisonnements, droit de veto

T_76

L'inflation verbale exarcerbe l'antagonisme. Les procès d'intention n'ont d'autre effet que d'ameuter inutilement les masses. Ces dérapements mis à part, est-ce que les politiques linguistiques du Québec ont contribué de quelque manière à l'exode des anglophones?

La question aurait sans doute une quelconque légitimité pour aussi peu qu'il y ait eu exode.

Or, les données démographiques ne valident pas cette thèse de l'exode. Entre les recensements de 1951 et de 2001, la population anglophone a sensiblement peu varié en termes de nombres absolus. Elle n'a certainement pas diminué même si certains se plaidront qu'elle a très peu augmenté.

Pourquoi la population anglophone aurait-elle d'ailleurs augmenté, comme il a été souligné sur ce fil de discussion? En quoi des politiques linguistiques plus souples auraient-elles été susceptibles d'attirer de nouveaux migrants anglophones, dans de vastes contextes géographique et économique, ou' une infinité de choix est offert? Qu'est-ce qui amène qui que ce soit à penser sérieusement que, dans ce contexte, le Québec soit particulièrement compétitif et que ce n'est qu'en raison de ses politiques linguistiques que la population anglophone ait très peu augmenté au cours des 50 dernières années? Thèse absurde pour quiconque consent à situer le débat dans le réel et non pas dans cette inflation verbale caractéristique, laquelle est souvent teintée de délire de persécution.


GG,

Le droit de veto en matière de politiques linguistiques ne touche aucunement les causes qui seraient entendues en Cour Suprême. La thèse du racisme n'est pas recevable pour au moins deux raisons: d'abord parce que la constitution canadienne n'oblige aucunement ses institutions à faire en sorte que la répartition de leurs effectifs soit parfaitement représentative de la population. Ensuite parce que la procédure exigerait au minimum que certains mécanismes discriminatoires présents soient étayés par des preuves.

De façon générale, un rééquilibrage des effectifs de la fonction publique québécoise selon les données démographiques actuelles n'aurait pas de véritable impact sur la répartition des pouvoirs politiques et économiques.

Sans doute bon nombre d'immigrants, qui se sont supposément vus refuser des postes au sein de la fonction publique québécoise, ont-ils vite compris que leur emploi du temps au sein de l'entreprise privée les rapprochent beaucoup plus d'un quelconque pouvoir que ne l'aurait fait un poste de petit fonctionnaire.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Comment adultes parlent aux adolescents

sapman99,

Situer les même récriminations dans un contexte géographique différent ne réfute pas la thèse de la partie adverse et ne fait qu'exarcerber les passions.

"C'est lui, madame, qui a commencé" ne convaincra pas ladite dame qu'on n'ait pas répliqué aux coups de l'adversaire. Seulement une façon de justifier que la chicane ait escaladé en violence.

Au change, tous y perdent.

La sagesse athénienne prodiguait cet enseignement qui n'a rien perdu de sa valeur: "Quand tu es enfant, apprend les bonnes manières; quand tu es adolescent, essaie de contrôler tes passions; quand tu deviens un adulte, soit un homme de justice; et quand tu deviens un vieillard, sois de bon conseil.

Le bon conseil sert mieux aux adolescents qui n'ont pas appris à contrôler leurs passions. Se mettre à leur niveau, nous retient tous de passer à l'âge adulte.

 

[sapman99]

Moi, Ziguezon, ce n'est pas une question de vengeance. Mais plutôt, d'expérience. Je suis d'accord avec le fond de ce que tu dis, mais aussi la sagesse nous apprend de grandir à travers les épreuves.

Alors étant donné qu'il ne reste qu'au Québec en Amérique du Nord où il est possible de vivre en français pleinement, et que d'autres communautés ont été ensevelies, je crois qu'il y a des moyens, sans faire la guerre, d'au moins s'affirmer, et se protéger.

 

[General Gonad]

deux études sur les minorités visibles dans la fonction publique

Le droit de veto en matière de politiques linguistiques ne touche aucunement les causes qui seraient entendues en Cour Suprême. La thèse du racisme n'est pas recevable pour au moins deux raisons: d'abord parce que la constitution canadienne n'oblige aucunement ses institutions à faire en sorte que la répartition de leurs effectifs soit parfaitement représentative de la population. Ensuite parce que la procédure exigerait au minimum que certains mécanismes discriminatoires présents soient étayés par des preuves.


De façon générale, un rééquilibrage des effectifs de la fonction publique québécoise selon les données démographiques actuelles n'aurait pas de véritable impact sur la répartition des pouvoirs politiques et économiques.

Sans doute bon nombre d'immigrants, qui se sont supposément vus refuser des postes au sein de la fonction publique québécoise, ont-ils vite compris que leur emploi du temps au sein de l'entreprise privée les rapprochent beaucoup plus d'un quelconque pouvoir que ne l'aurait fait un poste de petit fonctionnaire.

Ziggy,

Ta riposte me décourage. Certes, tes biais sont présents dans ton argument. Alors, je t'invite à lire ces études ci-dessous. La première est une étude démographique sur les minorités visibles dans la fonction publique fédérale (2000):

http://www.psagency-agencefp.gc.ca/research/demographics/communities/visible_demo_f.pdf

Les conclusions de cette étude sont:

"L'enjeu principal mis au jour par la présente analyse démographique est lié au fait que les minorités visibles sont sous-représentées au sein de la fonction publique.

En ce qui a trait à leur représentation dans la fonction publique, les minorités visibles reçoivent des promotions à des niveaux équivalents ou peut-être supérieurs aux nonmembres de minorités visibles. Soulignons toutefois que les analyses des taux de promotion qui sont présentées dans le présent document sont effectuées à un niveau condensé (p. ex., niveau de la catégorie); une analyse plus précise révélerait peut-être un taux de promotion inférieur pour les minorités visibles dans certains secteurs (p. ex., les groupes professionnels). En outre, le départ des membres de minorités visibles de la
fonction publique s'effectue à des taux inférieurs à ceux des non-membres de minorités visibles; par ailleurs, les membres des minorités visibles travaillent plus longtemps après être devenus admissibles à la retraite que les non-membres de minorités visibles.

Les faibles niveaux de recrutement externe des membres de minorités visibles ont constitué l'obstacle le plus important à une meilleure représentation. Selon les prévisions, si les taux courants d'arrivée se maintiennent, la fonction publique ne sera toujours pas représentative en 2023."

La deuxième est un mémoire présenté par l'Association des Fonctionnaires issus des Communautés culturelles (AFICC) avec le titre, POUR UNE FONCTION PUBLIQUE QUÉBÉCOISE OUVERTE AUX MINORITÉS ETHNIQUES ET CULTURELLES (1995):

http://aficc.org/publications.pdf

La conclusion de ce mémoire:

"Aussi bien la politique d'accès à l'emploi dans la fonction publique du Québec,
mise en oeuvre en 1984, que le programme mis en application en mars 1990, n'ont donné jusqu'ici que des résultats peu significatifs au niveau de l'amélioration de la représentation des personnes membres de communautés culturelles dans la fonction publique québécoise. Ces résultats déçoivent beaucoup l'AFICC et les membres des communautés culturelles en général.

Ceci amène l'AFICC à penser que des mesures incitatives seulement, seront
toujours insuffisantes pour obtenir une représentation équilibrée de ces personnes dans la fonction publique, conformément aux dispositions de la Loi sur la fonction publique et celles de la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne.

Le mémoire a démontré que les causes de cet échec sont nombreuses et
complexes et ne tiennent pas seulement à des considérations d'ordre conjoncturel et budgétaire, mais aussi à des causes structurelles profondes reliées à la problématique générale de l'intégration des minorités ethniques et à un manque de sensibilisation à la transformation de la société québécoise au point de vue démographique et multiethnique.

Selon notre interprétation, les dispositions de la Charte des droits de la personne relatives aux programmes d'accès à l'égalité en emploi ne seraient pas respectées actuellement, dans leur esprit, par le Gouvernement du Québec, en ce qui concerne le groupe-cible des communautés culturelles.

À notre avis une priorité doit être désormais accordée à ce dossier, même en cette période, car il s'agit du respect du droit à l'égalité pour une composante importante de la société québécoise.

Des mesures coercitives minimales sont nécessaires pour obtenir des résultats
significatifs en cette matière. Notre association a constaté que les questions d'égalité en emploi dans la fonction publique pour les minorités visibles, ont fait beaucoup de progrès chez d'autres gouvernements canadiens et étrangers, comme, par exemples, au Gouvernement de l'Ontario où une loi sur l'équité en emploi a été adoptée en 1993, au Gouvernement fédéral, au Royaume-Uni, en Australie et en Nouvelle-Zélande. Or, ces pays, ne sont pas plus démocratiques ni plus riches que le Québec."

Ce mémoire date depuis 12 ans et on parle de progrès?!??!?!?!

GG

 

[ParChance]

traveller_76,

I don't know what intent Techman has or had in his choice of the terms or expressions that he used, so if his choices evoked emotions you must admit that maybe they were only emotional to you as well as others on the opposing side of the debate. And if you chose not to listen to him or his arguments because you may have gotten emotional, that is your issue to get past in order to hear his side and try to understand it, as difficult as that may be. Choosing to not listen to his argument or point of view for some emotional issue will never allow people to come together or understand each other.

Does the term "ethnic cleansing" have to be associated with the act of murder in the physical sense or can it also be the intent of destroying or removing from within it's midst a specific community's existence ? Is it not possible that most of us find the term "ethnic cleansing" so repugnant because we associate it directly with other cases recently in our history such as Rwanda, Darfur and lesser known Ivory Coast ? And we dare not go back and think of what a fascist regime did to a thriving community in Germany in the 1930s & 40s. Unfortunately, people have short attention spans and history throughout time has almost always repeated itself or we have allowed it do so whether that be for fear of the unknown, such as a race, religion or ethnic groups that we don’t know and understand even less or to blame those same groups for our own failings to prosper from within.
Sure no one is going out and murdering anyone here in Quebec, we all understand that, but not allowing a community in the very age and time in which they exist to grow in numbers will spell the end of it’s existence and that matters not which community it is. We currently live in a North American society where no one is or can (for the most part) afford to have large families anymore, as it was in the past, so families aren’t replacing themselves (more than 2 children per) let alone increasing their numbers. If English immigrants aren’t permitted to join the existing English community here it will certainly die within time. No magic potion will alter this fact and if it dies along with it will go their institutions because down the road as their numbers will not warrant such an investment by the state and deservedly so. So this begs another question as to what are we talking about here? Canadians from outside of Quebec who emigrate here are currently permitted (by law) send to their children to Quebec’s English public school system and there doesn’t seem to be a floodgate a la the 9th district of New Orleans. So what does any sane person think will happen if the laws were allowed to include immigrants from the US & Great Britain as well? Nothing, as there aren’t many in either of those 2 countries who wish to emigrate to Canada as a whole and even less to Quebec, so let’s stop thinking so highly of ourselves, that the boats & planes are being loaded as we speak ready to embark on new lives in the Great White North. If this is the case that such opening up or inclusion in Bill101 wouldn’t affect the majority in the least, then one has to ask why any Quebec Provincial Government, past, present or future wouldn’t amend the law. Is it not politically desirable to the voters in the regions where not a single English family would move? This English immigration can’t harm the French fact in Quebec in the least, maybe just enrich it. But then again neither does a Sikh wearing a turban or a Muslim woman wearing a burka or a Hassidic Jew not wishing to talk to someone on Ave du Parc or oh my God, Hereouxville.
Please tell me where this so called vibrant English artistic community is here. By vibrant do you mean partially government subsidized like the Centaur Theatre where the remaining funding comes from the greater English community at large? What is an English Canadian culture anyhow? Or are we just another American one? Again once the population thins out, in time, so will the funding from both the gov’t & the private sector of this English artistic community.
What is downright oppressive is where the law permits the minority to send their children to the linguistic schools of the majority as well as their own, and broaden their future possibilities but disallows their own people (the majority) the reverse choice or option of sending their children to the minority’s linguistic schools. It’s as if those who wrote the law are saying to the majority that, you aren’t capable of deciding for yourselves, so we’re going to tell you what’s best for you, as you can’t be trusted to make such decisions. The French Quebecois decided that the Catholic church’s mothering of their lives had run it’s course, starting some 40 years ago, so perhaps it’s now time to go through a 2nd estrangement and attain full growth so as not to have it’s step mother, the Quebec government tell them what decisions to make and how to run their lives for them & their families.
P.S. I truly apologize but due to my age and ethnic background, I cannot understand and partake in the discussion should you only convey your arguments in French. For this I am truly sorry but at this stage of life I can’t grasp another language, so should you wish to have this old man included in your points of view on this subject, may I respectfully request that someone translate their passages for me. I hope that I may have some valuable input into this discussion from an ethnic point of view and from someone who has directly felt the lash of discrimination.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Sourde oreille

Ta riposte me décourage. Certes, tes biais sont présents dans ton argument. Alors, je t'invite à lire ces études ci-dessous. La première est une étude démographique sur les minorités visibles dans la fonction publique fédérale [...]

GG,

Je répète, pour la xième fois, que je suis bien conscient que les minorités sont sous-représentées dans la fonction publique québécoise.

C'est l'explication, c'est-à-dire la thèse du racisme, que je réfute.

Les conclusions des deux rapports soumis ci-dessus disent en gros que le gouvernement ne fait pas assez de discrimination positive ou, du moins, que ses politiques en matière d'embauche n'ont pas produit le résultat escompté. Je n'ai aucun problème à accepter cette conclusion.

Faire de la discrimination positive revient à offrir des incitatifs spéciaux (special incentives) aux minorités. On se plaint que les programmes d'embauche de la fonction publique ne présentent pas assez de ces incitatifs spéciaux.

Ne pas faire assez de discrimination positive ne veut aucunement dire qu'on fasse de la discrimination négative. On ne dit pas, dans ces rapports ni ailleurs, que les embaucheurs rejettent systématiquement les candidatures des minorités. Ce qu'on dit, en fait, c'est que le gouvernement du Québec n'a pas su attirer ces dites candidatures.

Très différent.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Hyperbole

Does the term "ethnic cleansing" have to be associated with the act of murder in the physical sense or can it also be the intent of destroying or removing from within it's midst a specific community's existence ? [...]

Parchance,

The expression "ethnic cleansing" was introduced in the English language in the early 1990s to describe the massacres perpetrated in the ex-Yugoslavia. Since then, its typical usage refers to a less objectionable way of saying "genocide". In the context of the Quebec linguistic debate, "ethnic cleansing" is either improperly used or uttered as an hyperbole, which only result is to hide the facts.