Which government is it, then, that censors foreign satellite dish channels? (Hint: I've got Canadian friends who have an under-the-counter US satellite account so they can get banned dish channels)
"Canadians take a more proactive stance on big government by now allowing one to happen in the first place."
Where did they do this? The South Seas? They must have ignored their own territory, because the Canadian government ended up a little bigger than the United States one.
"People have the right to put up signs in any language they like... we just ask that they also put up a french version on the sign too"
Ask all you want. Just don't force them.
"we just ask them not to deprive us of our rigth to be able to read what is public in our hometown/province..."
You don't have the "right" to force anyone to re-write any private writing to satisfy the whims of those who are too lazy to learn read the language. Language is a personal choice, not to be forced by gestapo. Or are you really one of those arrogant asses who can walk around in Chinatown and get heated into a foaming rage because you can't read the Chinese signs?". Get over it.
"You cannot judge such mesure without looking at the sociological reality of a nation."
Totalitarian ultranationalist regimes do this, free countries don't. You continue:
"of Quebecs wealth still is in the hand of English speaking Quebecers and most buisness are owned by them."
I didn't think you would go further down the road of the fascists, but you did. Substitute "Jews" for "English speaking" and it sounds more and more like certain bad situations that have happened before.
"Thus this is because we were denied our freedom to work in our language "
So it is OK to turn around and "Get back at them" by censoring them now?
"Had they treated us with respect rater than as pseudo-slaves..."
You are so totally caught up in the rhetoric of raciist retribution: because persons in Group A oppressed persons if Group B, it is OK for persons of Group B to oppress anyone of Group B. That's fine for you, as long as you are in Group B, right?
"Now we force them to let us use french... but we do not do as they did, that is deprive them of their right to use the language of their choice..."
The laws you defend do just this. However, you always could use French.
Thankfully, we had someone else from Quebec who chimed in and said that these nasty laws are not really enforced. Quebec is not near as bad as you are making it out to be.
It's a tax. Here you have the government forcing you to pay a special organization when you buy something that really has nothing to do with that organization. It is through government force. If it wasn't, no one would have to pay it, would they?
Whether or not I like it, it is still a tax. Also, you are forgetting thata more traditional (federal sales tax) is applied to the full price of the item, including the levy.
Here are some other references to the tax:
"Federal Government to Levy Blank CD-Rewritable Media". (a law site: if lawyers don't know what a tax is, who does?_ Elsewhere,
"Different rules apply when an individual is expressing their personal opinion"
Why? It is still an individual expressing something. At least in the United States constitution, you are not supposed to lose your free speech rights just because what you say might happen to agree with what someone else might want you to say.
"Free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want (e.g.: libel and slander, NDAs, etc.)"
Yet, here you have it censored only because it might be similar or identical to what someone else might say or want you to say. Not because it is slanderous or NDA'neous (no idea what an NDA is).
"Largely it isn't. Others who live in Quebec might disagree with me here, but there was a time period where the "language police" were going crazy monitoring everything."
That's good. In my other message, I found the idea of a Chinatown filled with non-Chinese government-mandated signs on businesses ridiculous. The other person said something like "speak French or leave!"
"To be clear: my point was not to defend the laws and measures that have been put into place. I don't like those measures at all.
I just wanted to set the record straight on what it's actually like to live in Quebec.
"There are many aspects, facets, and degrees of detail involved in its meaning based on complete context, usage, and background knowledge of the subject matter that establish its contextual meaning"
Exactly, and in the context Gore used, invent and create mean the same thing, even if they would not mean the same thing in another context.
"Firstly, I consider Ads to be a corporate issue, not a private speech issue"
All speech is by individuals. A corporation cannot speak, when you get right down to it. Why even look for an excuse to censor in the first place? Besides, when condemning this censorship, I had the small non-corporate business in mind (the downtown T shirt seller or grocer). A large corporation is likely to print in French there anyway as not to avoid French consumer dollars.
"I do not think corporations should be accorded as many rights and freedoms as individuals."
Does this mean then that individuals lose their free speech rights if they are members of corporations? Regardless, I do not believe in looking for excuses to censor any speech.
"Chinatown, all the signs are in chinese, and it's hard to find french or english anywhere. "
This is the first thing you have said that backs up your "it is really not that bad" statement. I asked the other guy about Chinatown earlier, and he did not answer. So the law is not being enforced?
" I am willing to put up with some strangeness in order for the french culture to be happy and preserved"
You can always ask if a "culture" is worth saving if it requires trampling on people's rights to prop it up, and it cannot survive on its own merit. I'm just strongly against any sort of cultural force.
The Snopes article appears to be an attempt to excuse and spin. The language is so phony that it is what you would expect from the Democratic Party is the list only named Democrat criminals, or from the Republican Party if it named only Republicans. The Snopes justification for the criminals reads kind of like a bipartisan version of "my party can do no wrong".
One of the things in the list however deserves attention: "117 have bankrupted at least two businesses"
As a body, they have bankrupted thousands of business due to enacting of regulations and punitive tax increases.
"There is no censoring of private speech that I'm aware of or have ever encountered"
Ads, which you say are censored for language content, are private speech. Something that is done by the citizens, not the state. That is not reasonable. Why should this be the government's business? See my example about a Sanskrit sign in the other post.
What sort of legalities are involved with it? If you are seller of signs, and have non-French signs in your window as part of displaying your wares, do the gestapo come down on your for that?
I see the "what has Quebec gained tenfold" question answered with "inordinate political power". Thanks for answering the question.
"then why is there such a heavy infulence from Quebec? and yet you want more??"
You have me confused with another. I came into the Quebec argument as a non-Quebecoi questioning how that province denies freedom of personal expression based on ethnic heritage.
"Does not your gov't derive its power and authority from the.....public??"
Yes, but it is still a separate entity with its own goals. As a comparison (US politics): the Supreme Court justices are all appointed by Presidents. However, it is a different body than the executive (presidential) branch.
"The government is the people" is a worthwhile lofty goal, but just about every place with a constitution recognizes that there is an important difference, and limits need to be placed on what one group (government) can do to the other group ("the people").
"Well, if, by your moniker, you've been working for the Reform Party, which became the Canadian Alliance and is now the Conservative party"
Gack! Why don't they just call themselves the Rename Party and be done with it? We have a "Reform Party" in the US. It started out with its main mission being defecit-reduction under Ross Perot, but evolved into a "We Hate Mexicans" party under Pat Buchanan.
I would not call Canada full anything population-wise. One of the notable things about the country is its vast size and smalll population, almost all of which lives very close to the southern (US) border.
"If you're gonna turn tail and run on account of Bush, you're no use up here when shit happens either"
Yeah. As soon as Canada elects a government they do not like, they will run to Cuba. And if an election ever happens in Cuba, they will run to North Korea. Then they will have no where else to run.
It is the commercial censorship that goes WAY overboard. A country that respects the free rights of expression for its citizens would not care what language people used in their private, non-governmental affairs.
"there must be a french version available so that the 80% of french speaking population can understand... that is not asking a lot"
Yes it is asking a lot. The US has more than 80% english speaking, but if someone wants to put up a sign in Sanskrit on their own private business, so what? Leave the government out of it. The free market will take care of problems like this: a Sanskrit-only sign on a storefront in either the US or Quebec will turn away most customers.
Do you mean to say that if you go into a Chinatown in Quebec, all the Chinese signs on businesses will have French on them by government decree? That's ridicolous.
"Not to mention that Quebec never ratified the Canadian constitution... it was forced on us..."
Did it have other basic human rights (besides the right to use the language you want) that you did not like as well?
"Especially if you consider that the english polulation of canada has done a lot in the past to try to strip us of our French heritage"
Similar claims have been made in totalitarian countries to justify the banning of the "wrong" kind of expression and crush people's rights. It is not anything to be proud of. Denying people's basic rights to make up for past abuses by other people.
Try the Baen Free Library. You are out of luck here if you don't like "sci fi", and the selection is rather small, but the files are nice and unemcumbered and they do have some great ones like Fallen Angels.
"The problem with that statement is that this is a levy, not a tax"
A levy is a kind of tax. Don't make a distinction that does not exist in order to make it sound better. If it is money that the government forces you to pay to it, it is a tax. This particular money is collected by the government and then given to CRIA.
"You can write in whateven language you want, as long as you also have a French version! Speak the language... French!"
So, they still have the language-nazi problem? For all of the US problems with the Spanish language, I have yet to see a proposal as extreme as having the government punishing individuals for writing in the "wrong" language. Not even Pat Buchanan.
"Speak the language... French!"
Why not let them speak what they want? There is no good reason at all that the "French language protection" needs to go beyond making sure French is used in government operations (inciuding government road signs). It really crosses the line to censor private individuals.
Slashdot Mirror
Which government is it, then, that censors foreign satellite dish channels? (Hint: I've got Canadian friends who have an under-the-counter US satellite account so they can get banned dish channels)
You mean fraud such as his Fedex scam was legal?
I don't think he is going to be selling penis lengthening formula to the other guys on his cell-block. He'll be feeling enough pain as it is.
"Damn, I'm in exactly the same musician boat as you are. Former pro, no rights to anything " Did you sing on "Chess" ?
On both MSIE and regular Mozilla, the bullets line up with the rest of the left margin.
Where did they do this? The South Seas? They must have ignored their own territory, because the Canadian government ended up a little bigger than the United States one.
What browser are you using, Mr. Dumas? On my screen, all the bullet-characters line up with the leftmost letters of the non-bullet lines. Perfectly.
Ask all you want. Just don't force them.
"we just ask them not to deprive us of our rigth to be able to read what is public in our hometown/province..."
You don't have the "right" to force anyone to re-write any private writing to satisfy the whims of those who are too lazy to learn read the language. Language is a personal choice, not to be forced by gestapo. Or are you really one of those arrogant asses who can walk around in Chinatown and get heated into a foaming rage because you can't read the Chinese signs?". Get over it.
"You cannot judge such mesure without looking at the sociological reality of a nation."
Totalitarian ultranationalist regimes do this, free countries don't. You continue:
"of Quebecs wealth still is in the hand of English speaking Quebecers and most buisness are owned by them."
I didn't think you would go further down the road of the fascists, but you did. Substitute "Jews" for "English speaking" and it sounds more and more like certain bad situations that have happened before.
"Thus this is because we were denied our freedom to work in our language "
So it is OK to turn around and "Get back at them" by censoring them now?
"Had they treated us with respect rater than as pseudo-slaves..."
You are so totally caught up in the rhetoric of raciist retribution: because persons in Group A oppressed persons if Group B, it is OK for persons of Group B to oppress anyone of Group B. That's fine for you, as long as you are in Group B, right?
"Now we force them to let us use french... but we do not do as they did, that is deprive them of their right to use the language of their choice.. ."
The laws you defend do just this. However, you always could use French.
Thankfully, we had someone else from Quebec who chimed in and said that these nasty laws are not really enforced. Quebec is not near as bad as you are making it out to be.
Whether or not I like it, it is still a tax. Also, you are forgetting thata more traditional (federal sales tax) is applied to the full price of the item, including the levy.
Here are some other references to the tax:
"Federal Government to Levy Blank CD-Rewritable Media". (a law site: if lawyers don't know what a tax is, who does?_ Elsewhere,
Stereophone (which knows CD's) says "Canada Decides to Tax Blank Media".
TWShepherd.com cuts through the BS: "...to increase the tax (they call it a levy in obfuspeak) on blank media...".
A Canadian legal site, lawconnection.ca: "Board is responsible for setting the levy or tax on blank CDs and cassettes..."
"The levy/tax is problematic in that it is quite abstract" - canadianheritage.gc.ca
"..with an increased levy or tax on all blank CDs...." - cbc.ca
"I have represented opponents to Canada's blank audio recording media levy, which is ordinarily referred to as a tax." - ccfda.ca lawyer site.
Why? It is still an individual expressing something. At least in the United States constitution, you are not supposed to lose your free speech rights just because what you say might happen to agree with what someone else might want you to say.
"Free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want (e.g.: libel and slander, NDAs, etc.)"
Yet, here you have it censored only because it might be similar or identical to what someone else might say or want you to say. Not because it is slanderous or NDA'neous (no idea what an NDA is).
"Largely it isn't. Others who live in Quebec might disagree with me here, but there was a time period where the "language police" were going crazy monitoring everything."
That's good. In my other message, I found the idea of a Chinatown filled with non-Chinese government-mandated signs on businesses ridiculous. The other person said something like "speak French or leave!"
"To be clear: my point was not to defend the laws and measures that have been put into place. I don't like those measures at all. I just wanted to set the record straight on what it's actually like to live in Quebec.
Thanks!
Exactly, and in the context Gore used, invent and create mean the same thing, even if they would not mean the same thing in another context.
All speech is by individuals. A corporation cannot speak, when you get right down to it. Why even look for an excuse to censor in the first place? Besides, when condemning this censorship, I had the small non-corporate business in mind (the downtown T shirt seller or grocer). A large corporation is likely to print in French there anyway as not to avoid French consumer dollars.
"I do not think corporations should be accorded as many rights and freedoms as individuals."
Does this mean then that individuals lose their free speech rights if they are members of corporations? Regardless, I do not believe in looking for excuses to censor any speech.
"Chinatown, all the signs are in chinese, and it's hard to find french or english anywhere. "
This is the first thing you have said that backs up your "it is really not that bad" statement. I asked the other guy about Chinatown earlier, and he did not answer. So the law is not being enforced?
" I am willing to put up with some strangeness in order for the french culture to be happy and preserved"
You can always ask if a "culture" is worth saving if it requires trampling on people's rights to prop it up, and it cannot survive on its own merit. I'm just strongly against any sort of cultural force.
One of the things in the list however deserves attention: "117 have bankrupted at least two businesses"
As a body, they have bankrupted thousands of business due to enacting of regulations and punitive tax increases.
Ads, which you say are censored for language content, are private speech. Something that is done by the citizens, not the state. That is not reasonable. Why should this be the government's business? See my example about a Sanskrit sign in the other post.
What sort of legalities are involved with it? If you are seller of signs, and have non-French signs in your window as part of displaying your wares, do the gestapo come down on your for that?
"then why is there such a heavy infulence from Quebec? and yet you want more??"
You have me confused with another. I came into the Quebec argument as a non-Quebecoi questioning how that province denies freedom of personal expression based on ethnic heritage.
Yes, but it is still a separate entity with its own goals. As a comparison (US politics): the Supreme Court justices are all appointed by Presidents. However, it is a different body than the executive (presidential) branch.
"The government is the people" is a worthwhile lofty goal, but just about every place with a constitution recognizes that there is an important difference, and limits need to be placed on what one group (government) can do to the other group ("the people").
Gack! Why don't they just call themselves the Rename Party and be done with it? We have a "Reform Party" in the US. It started out with its main mission being defecit-reduction under Ross Perot, but evolved into a "We Hate Mexicans" party under Pat Buchanan.
That is interesting, but it is granted by the government, not the public. Big difference.
Freedom-of-speech certainly did not benefit. What did benefit "tenfold"? Are the Quebecoi ten times richer than before?
I would not call Canada full anything population-wise. One of the notable things about the country is its vast size and smalll population, almost all of which lives very close to the southern (US) border.
Yeah. As soon as Canada elects a government they do not like, they will run to Cuba. And if an election ever happens in Cuba, they will run to North Korea. Then they will have no where else to run.
It is the commercial censorship that goes WAY overboard. A country that respects the free rights of expression for its citizens would not care what language people used in their private, non-governmental affairs.
"there must be a french version available so that the 80% of french speaking population can understand... that is not asking a lot"
Yes it is asking a lot. The US has more than 80% english speaking, but if someone wants to put up a sign in Sanskrit on their own private business, so what? Leave the government out of it. The free market will take care of problems like this: a Sanskrit-only sign on a storefront in either the US or Quebec will turn away most customers.
Do you mean to say that if you go into a Chinatown in Quebec, all the Chinese signs on businesses will have French on them by government decree? That's ridicolous.
"Not to mention that Quebec never ratified the Canadian constitution... it was forced on us..."
Did it have other basic human rights (besides the right to use the language you want) that you did not like as well?
"Especially if you consider that the english polulation of canada has done a lot in the past to try to strip us of our French heritage"
Similar claims have been made in totalitarian countries to justify the banning of the "wrong" kind of expression and crush people's rights. It is not anything to be proud of. Denying people's basic rights to make up for past abuses by other people.
Try the Baen Free Library. You are out of luck here if you don't like "sci fi", and the selection is rather small, but the files are nice and unemcumbered and they do have some great ones like Fallen Angels.
A levy is a kind of tax. Don't make a distinction that does not exist in order to make it sound better. If it is money that the government forces you to pay to it, it is a tax. This particular money is collected by the government and then given to CRIA.
So, they still have the language-nazi problem? For all of the US problems with the Spanish language, I have yet to see a proposal as extreme as having the government punishing individuals for writing in the "wrong" language. Not even Pat Buchanan.
"Speak the language ... French!"
Why not let them speak what they want? There is no good reason at all that the "French language protection" needs to go beyond making sure French is used in government operations (inciuding government road signs). It really crosses the line to censor private individuals.