First Indigenous Woman As Canadas Governor General Faces Removal Over Language

[Fatigay 21,237]

18 minutes ago, Economy said:

I still dont agree with other bilingual requirements for private sector tho such as product labels for example. There are many languages spoken in english speaking Provinces and i seriously doubt french is even close to the 2nd most spoken in most areas

Why should French-only speaking people in rural Quebec have bilingual labels then? It's bilingual here too, even if people speak French at home, or even if they don't know any of the two. The two official languages are French and English, and companies are welcome to not make business with Quebec if they don't want to translate their stuff. Some already do that anyway. The US has many bilingual (English-Spanish) labels, even in areas where there aren't that many Hispanophones. And Spanish is not an official language in the US. So French DOES have its place on product labels, websites, and especially official stuff coming from the government. 

 

21 minutes ago, Economy said:

I think its more purely about the symbolism and nothing else cuz Quebec wants us to be exposed to french to promote the language even tho we simply just dont really use it

Sounds like a You (Anglophone communities) problem

[Bronco 28,177]

14 hours ago, Melancholia said:

languages are about communication

Yep which is exactly why the French & English canadian communities spent the last 300+ years surpressing & attacking indigenous language and forcing assimilation. Which you are continuing to help support. 

You say it's important for French speakers to be able to understand their government. Why are you so against indigenous canadians having that as well? It reeks of colonialist racism. 

[Bronco 28,177]

5 hours ago, GoldenPonyboy said:

As far as i am concerned, this situation mirrors the lieutenant gov in NB being a lesbian woman but unable to soeak french. The french community here were not asking to remove her. We were asking for an acknowledgment that whoever will be appointed after will repect french charter right. 

Except this situation is not that. People do want this indigenous woman removed. And the group that has brought the challenge has a well established history of promoting racism within Quebec - their now thankfully dead leader literally rallied people to his side on the claims that Quebec was being racist to white people. They support a draconian and deliberately targeted islamophobic law that even the courts stated clearly breached Canadian equality laws. They back a party which wants to exempt Quebec from multiculturalism to protect "french" which is the most blatant racist dog whistle in existence. 

So maybe educate yourself? 

[Economy 53,162]

1 hour ago, thierryrreiht said:

Why should French-only speaking people in rural Quebec have bilingual labels then?

Well i never said they should. To me its kind of a dumb thing to demand either way in areas ppl dont speak the language. Theres no practicality in it whatsoever

 

Its purely symbolic. It may be "official language" but in practicle terms, the 2nd official language isnt necessairily the one people speak more of. If they dont, why insist it has to be present?

 

That goes for english as well in Quebec. I DO NOT CARE AT ALL if your labels include english nor would I ever try to demand that

 

I understand government because its representing both regions. But locally, i find forcing the 2 official languages in our daily lives when the secondary it isnt even necessairily the most spoken 2nd language is an outdated standard based on a time of high cultural pride and superiority and both sides fighting to have representation in language

 

Canada has changed a lot since confederarion and when British and French settlers made up the majority of immigration. For instance where I live Punjabi labels would help a hell of a lot more people than french. Theres not much use or practicality in trying to force it in pur daily lives when hardly anyone uses it

[LOVEDRUG 11,350]

56 minutes ago, Bronco said:

Yep which is exactly why the French & English canadian communities spent the last 300+ years surpressing & attacking indigenous language and forcing assimilation. Which you are continuing to help support. 

You say it's important for French speakers to be able to understand their government. Why are you so against indigenous canadians having that as well? It reeks of colonialist racism. 

i'll say once again i'm not talking about history. i'm all for indigenous canadians having representatives who speak their language, hence why i stated local representatives are a good way to apply this. the federal system in canada allows for provinces to set their own official languages and apply regional approaches to language. this is how we get the current situation...

english only: british columbia, alberta, saskatchawen, ontario, prince edward island, manitoba

english and french: new brunswick, yukon

english and indigenous languages: nova scotia

english, french and indigenous languages: nunavut, northwest territories

french only: quebec 

i'm not posting here trying to claim that indigenous canadians shouldn't have representatives who speak their language, i'm trying to provide an explanation as to why fluency in french is a constitutional requirement but fluency in a native language is not. on the local/provincial level you can apply a more specific approach, but on the national level it only makes sense for french to be constitutionally mandated.

[Bronco 28,177]

27 minutes ago, Melancholia said:

i'll say once again i'm not talking about history.

Look you can't use statistics to back up your point of view if you refuse to acknowledge how those stats came to exist. Data doesn't exist in a vaccum.

The stats you use to back up your position are ones produced through cultural genocide of indigenous populations by British & French settlers. So of course the stats produced support only including English & French languages - because the population that the stats represent was deliberately designed through force to do so. 

If you want to use statistics produced by opression to support opression admit to what you are actually doing. Because what you are saying is that only the persecuters deserve respect at all levels of the Canadian Federal Gov on the basis of the fact that the persecuters successfully committed genocide.

Arguing that indigenous people should have to learn 3 languages to be able to join the Federal Gov and see actual representation of themselves in government is to continue the work of colonial genocide against those people. Limiting them to representation only in specific areas of local gov is segregation. 

I know the context of why the Canadian system exists - I don't need you to continue to tell me why.  What I am saying is that it is wrong. That it is a system that continues the forced assimilation of indigenous people. Forced assimilation of indigenous people is a legally defined aspect of cultural genocide. The fact that perpetrators of genocide have more legal protection than the survivors is morally repugnant. 

[LOVEDRUG 11,350]

12 minutes ago, Bronco said:

Look you can't use statistics to back up your point of view if you refuse to acknowledge how those stats came to exist. Data doesn't exist in a vaccum.

The stats you use to back up your position are ones produced through cultural genocide of indigenous populations by British & French settlers. So of course the stats produced support only including English & French languages - because the population that the stats represent was deliberately designed through force to do so. 

If you want to use statistics produced by opression to support opression admit to what you are actually doing. Because what you are saying is that only the persecuters deserve respect at all levels of the Canadian Federal Gov on the basis of the fact that the persecuters successfully committed genocide.

what i am saying is that it is completely illogical to base political decisions on what the reality should be. we can talk all we want about how badly we want those historical genocides to not have happened, but the reality is that they did, whether we want them to have happened or not. as a consequence, native culture and language has been severely damaged and has nowhere near as big of a presence as it used to. we can encourage schemes to introduce more native language programmes in schools, and do our best to educate people on the horrific crimes that happened, particularly some of the more recent ones such as residential schools.

but requiring people at the federal level to speak a language that ~0.6% of people speak is not useful. you can't operate a government effectively if you're introducing completely empty, meaningless gestures in order to 'support' indigenous communities that will only help a tiny proportion of the population, rather than actually solving the issues on the ground that affect those communities. if you ask me, indigenous girls being kidnapped and murdered is a far greater and more important issue than an indigenous politician being required to speak french (just as every single governor general is required to).

the attitude of "well she speaks an indigenous language, but not french" has no practical or realistic benefit. sure, it's fantastic that someone in such an important role speaks an indigenous language, and her appointment to the position has been a great step in canada facing its awful past. but the french requirement is there for practical reasons, not emotional ones. regardless of what caused those statistics, and even though they're the consequence of some dire, disgusting historical events, they represent the reality on the ground. the actual practicalities of dealing in government and governing a country.

[Bronco 28,177]

24 minutes ago, Melancholia said:

what i am saying is that it is completely illogical to base political decisions on what the reality should be. we can talk all we want about how badly we want those historical genocides to not have happened, but the reality is that they did, whether we want them to have happened or not. as a consequence, native culture and language has been severely damaged and has nowhere near as big of a presence as it used to. we can encourage schemes to introduce more native language programmes in schools, and do our best to educate people on the horrific crimes that happened, particularly some of the more recent ones such as residential schools.

but requiring people at the federal level to speak a language that ~0.6% of people speak is not useful. you can't operate a government effectively if you're introducing completely empty, meaningless gestures in order to 'support' indigenous communities that will only help a tiny proportion of the population, rather than actually solving the issues on the ground that affect those communities. if you ask me, indigenous girls being kidnapped and murdered is a far greater and more important issue than an indigenous politician being required to speak french (just as every single governor general is required to).

the attitude of "well she speaks an indigenous language, but not french" has no practical or realistic benefit. sure, it's fantastic that someone in such an important role speaks an indigenous language, and her appointment to the position has been a great step in canada facing its awful past. but the french requirement is there for practical reasons, not emotional ones. regardless of what caused those statistics, and even though they're the consequence of some dire, disgusting historical events, they represent the reality on the ground. the actual practicalities of dealing in government and governing a country.

Three paragraphs just to repeat yet again you're racist. 

Like you're literally saying "We successfully committed genocide so please respect that". You're actively speaking in favour of a group of racists, who have supported racist laws & blocked action against racism in Canadian institutions in attacking an indigenous woman for not having assimilated correctly in their eyes. 

Indigenous women and girls facing disproportionate violence is because of racism. Racism inherently inbedded in the system you are defending. Don't pretend you care about them when you are arguing against them being represented in government if they don't acquiese to being 2nd class citizens. Don't pretend you care when you are here arguing in support of the very system of oppression that harms them. Until people like you are prepared to accept indigenous people being represented in government on an equal footing with all other Canadians they will never be free from the violence they face. Because it is the inequality of continuing forced assimilationist measures that make these indigenous women & girls such easy targets. People like you are saying unless you behave how we want you will be treated as different, you will be kept out of the levers of power and you will not be given the respect you deserve. 

[GoldenPonyboy 2,434]

3 hours ago, Bronco said:

Except this situation is not that. People do want this indigenous woman removed. And the group that has brought the challenge has a well established history of promoting racism within Quebec - their now thankfully dead leader literally rallied people to his side on the claims that Quebec was being racist to white people. They support a draconian and deliberately targeted islamophobic law that even the courts stated clearly breached Canadian equality laws. They back a party which wants to exempt Quebec from multiculturalism to protect "french" which is the most blatant racist dog whistle in existence. 

So maybe educate yourself? 

I have never denied the existance of colonialism and its impact in indiginous peoples and have never claimed to support the specific group calling for her to be out. I am in fact well educated in the subject and i am strictly talking from a legal persoective. 
 

French communities accross Canada and Quebec had to fight to have their rights recognized and still do to this day. The failure of the majority gov to uphold indiginous peoples rights should fall on all Canadians, not just french soeaking canadians. 
 

this debate is trying to push a narrative of french vs indiginous when that should not be the case. The gov can do better on all fronts and french communities should not be blamed from asking their rights to be respected. Same as when indiginous communities ask for their ancestral rights and treaty rights to be respected. They should be and they have the right to take the gov to court over it. 

[LOVEDRUG 11,350]

45 minutes ago, Bronco said:

Three paragraphs just to repeat yet again you're racist. 

Like you're literally saying "We successfully committed genocide so please respect that". You're actively speaking in favour of a group of racists, who have supported racist laws & blocked action against racism in Canadian institutions in attacking an indigenous woman for not having assimilated correctly in their eyes. 

Indigenous women and girls facing disproportionate violence is because of racism. Racism inherently inbedded in the system you are defending. Don't pretend you care about them when you are arguing against them being represented in government if they don't acquiese to being 2nd class citizens. Don't pretend you care when you are here arguing in support of the very system of oppression that harms them. Until people like you are prepared to accept indigenous people being represented in government on an equal footing with all other Canadians they will never be free from the violence they face. Because it is the inequality of continuing forced assimilationist measures that make these indigenous women & girls such easy targets. People like you are saying unless you behave how we want you will be treated as different, you will be kept out of the levers of power and you will not be given the respect you deserve. 

the moment your argument devolves from actually arguing in favour of your points and switches to calling someone a racist out of nowhere is the moment you lose all credibility.

if saying that someone who's been appointed to be the governor-general should follow the same rules as everyone else who's been appointed to that position makes me a racist in your eyes, you seriously need to re-evaluate your priorities. note that i didn't once call for her removal, despite you claiming that i was siding with those who are, i just think some of the defences as to why she shouldn't have to speak french when every other elected official of her level do are trivial and ridiculous.

i won't be replying to any further comments here if we can't discuss this civilly. it seems mary simon is working to learn french and has been trying to make some speeches in it too, which honestly makes me respect her greatly as many politicians are far too stubborn to make such a move. however, i hope the situation allows people to reflect a little on the process by which the governor-general is chosen, and hopefully a situation like this can be avoided in the future.

[Bronco 28,177]

7 minutes ago, Melancholia said:

the moment your argument devolves from actually arguing in favour of your points and switches to calling someone a racist out of nowhere is the moment you lose all credibility.

It wasn't sudden. 

You've actively sought to diminish the importance of indigenous languages in Canada using data produced through colonial violence. 
At every opportunity you have reasserted the doctrine of forced assimilation. Forced assimilation is recognised by the Geneva convention as a tool of cultural genocide. 

When this has been presented to you, you've repeated the exact same behaviours and insisted that forcing French or English onto the indigenous population is perfectly fine. Despite the fact that this has been identified by legal cases in Canada itself as an act of genocide having been carried out by the English & French settlers. 

[Bronco 28,177]

17 minutes ago, GoldenPonyboy said:

french communities should not be blamed from asking their rights to be respected.

Colonists don't have rights. 
Besides the right to leave and return to their actual home. 

[Economy 53,162]

1 hour ago, Bronco said:

Colonists don't have rights. 
Besides the right to leave and return to their actual home. 

Im on the camp that thinks she should be given a chance on the grounds they deserve representation and also forcing a first nations to have to know 3 languages in order to get into government an unfair roadblock for them. Also the Governor general doesnt really speak to the public much anyway. I do not think the issue of communication is as serious as for a Prime Minister or even an MP as the Governor Generals role is largely ceremonial.

 

However i have to disagree with the way u said ur comment.

 

The ppl of today are not colonozers. Sharing genetic heritage with people that existed 300 years ago give you Citizenship in France nor does it make u culpable for what happened

 

In addition, even if u could blame someone for the actions of ancestors (a concept thats already sketch as hell as it is), most ppl are not even direct descendants of settlers as most families immigrated in the last 100 years

 

For example im Portuguese background. I fully acknowledge the Portuguese did terrible things especially in Africa that have no justification. But i refuse to take blame for actions taken before I even existed just because the conquerors genetics were past down to me

[Bronco 28,177]

1 hour ago, Economy said:

The ppl of today are not colonozers. Sharing genetic heritage with people that existed 300 years ago give you Citizenship in France nor does it make u culpable for what happened

 

In addition, even if u could blame someone for the actions of ancestors (a concept thats already sketch as hell as it is), most ppl are not even direct descendants of settlers as most families immigrated in the last 100 years

 

For example im Portuguese background. I fully acknowledge the Portuguese did terrible things especially in Africa that have no justification. But i refuse to take blame for actions taken before I even existed just because the conquerors genetics were past down to me

So because you didn't personally do it, you don't think it matters?

Here's the thing. Colonisers benefit from a system rigged in their favour. It's not about taking personal blame, it's about doing what is right. 

If your only focus is on how you feel then you're endorsing a system built to enshrine the horrors of the past. If you aren't prepared to advocate against it and acknowledge how you benefit then you aren't anti-racist. 

As for the argument about direct descendants/recent immigration. That's continued colonisation. These people don't belong to that land, they moved their and benefit from a system that forced out the owners of the land so they could settle there.
Bloc Quebecois, Parti Quebecois and CAQ alongside Cons repeatedly attack non-white minorities & block any attempts regionally or nationally to address *current* issues within Canada regarding racism. The argument about most people not being direct descendants is irrelevant when the present government that *they* elect actively continues & even tries to increase the level of discrimination in that society. 

[Economy 53,162]

28 minutes ago, Bronco said:

So because you didn't personally do it, you don't think it matters?

Here's the thing. Colonisers benefit from a system rigged in their favour. It's not about taking personal blame, it's about doing what is right. 

If your only focus is on how you feel then you're endorsing a system built to enshrine the horrors of the past. If you aren't prepared to advocate against it and acknowledge how you benefit then you aren't anti-racist. 

As for the argument about direct descendants/recent immigration. That's continued colonisation. These people don't belong to that land, they moved their and benefit from a system that forced out the owners of the land so they could settle there.
Bloc Quebecois, Parti Quebecois and CAQ alongside Cons repeatedly attack non-white minorities & block any attempts regionally or nationally to address *current* issues within Canada regarding racism. The argument about most people not being direct descendants is irrelevant when the present government that *they* elect actively continues & even tries to increase the level of discrimination in that 

Ok seriously??????? Talk about some serious reaching right there, you know perfectly well thats not what I said

 

I questioned ur wording. I did not say that it doesnt matter nor am i disagreeing with u on the big picture and if u read my comments on this thread so far ud have noticed im generally on ur side

 

But wording matters. U cannot sound so agressive and calling people colonizors in such a way that u borderline imply they deserve personal blame for it and then be confused with ppl get defensive

 

Some ppl seem to be more interested in arguing to sound morally superior than actually achieving co-operation.

 

I dont know why ppl still havent figured out that when u talk agressive to get ur point across you almost never ever ever get any results. Try a new strategy. Try debating in a less obnoxious way. U might find u get somewhere more productive with your discussions