Posts
Michael Ignatieff spoke about how bilingualism is part of the Canadian identity. Since identity is a rather loose concept that relies almost entirely on the feelings and attitudes of individuals, I think I can let that one slide. I would disagree but he can define the country however he wants.
What I find puzzling is why he feels the need to spend everybody’s money to enforce his concept of Canada. If this is who we are as a people, in the sort of fundamental way that Ignatieff speaks of, then why do we need government funding to enforce it? If we are a bilingual people by nature shouldn’t we be, you know, bilingual by nature?
That isn’t even the most puzzling part of his speech. Mr. Ignatieff claims that bilingualism is the reason why Canada has been united for “hundreds and hundreds of years.” I have to believe that this is a quote taken out of context because I find it hard to believe that the man was this silly.
Two things come instantly to mind:
1. Official bilingualism has been enforced for less than half a century.
2. Canada hasn’t been a country for more than 143 years. So how could we have been united for hundreds and hundreds of years?
I suppose we can put this comment down to Mr. Ignatieff being to enthusiastic. But really that is the whole problem with this idea of government promoted bilingualism. It is too enthusiastic.
It creates a picture of Canada that doesn’t exist and frankly never will exist. We are not a bilingual people. There are many languages spoken in Canada, and many people speak more than one of them. But English and French are not at the heart of every Canadian.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I agree, and at a time when we have out of control deficits talk about dollars to support minority linguistic communities throughout Canada is just reckless.
It also seems that Ignatieff likes to try to make every one feel all warm and fuzzy by musing about these kinds of safe, intangible, generic concepts. He is way out of his depth as leader of the opposition.
"We are not a bilingual people. There are many languages spoken in Canada, and many people speak more than one of them. But English and French are not at the heart of every Canadian."
How come Canadians who believe in this ideology still accepted to sign the 1982 constitution making Canada officially bilingual whereas Quebec refused to sign it.
I mean for Quebec, it's comprehensible since it was René Lévesque from the PQ leading the discussion however for the rest of the 9 remaining provinces, I mean come on. Do people sign things they don't agree on or don't believe in despite all the legal implications there is in the most important piece of legislation the country has which is the constitution? Maybe one or two provinces could be foolish enough to do that but all of the remaining nine? Was Pierre-Eliot Trudeau that convincing?
If one is to believe in Canada, its culture and history, he or she has to believe that there was essentially two founding people which were the French and the English and that's what the constitution recognizes. The fact that thousand other languages are spoken today in Canada is part of recent history but isn't part of the history and the spirit of the constitution of 1867 recognizing the two main people of Canada: the French and the English.
And if one province wants not to agree with that, why in the world would they sign a piece of legislation which states otherwise?
That's right Iggy..
..because God knows that the Lakeshore riding you hold reminds one of the Riviera, with all the French one hears on the street..
Post a Comment