Wednesday, September 14, 2005
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IN NEW BRUNSWICK - ONLY GOOD FOR THE ACADIAN PEOPLE????
I have been telling the Lord Government for the last five years - In front of the Justice Building in Fredericton flies The Canadian, New Brunswick and Acadian Flag. Where the Union Jack? Is Justice in New Brunswick only good for the Acadian Population???
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
37 comments:
Wow, you're really trying to start something aren't you Charles. :)
I don't have a problem with the Union Jack not flying. It's a different country these days so no big deal. City halls could fly it on certain occasions like Victoria Day and I think maybe some do. (They fly just about every other flag anybody brings anyway) I think flying the Union Jack would only fuel the fire over at the Societies des Acadiennes anyway. As I've mentioned here before they have as many conspiracy theories as the Anglo Society but have been given credibility by the mainstream media. No need to egg them on with one more.
I've been at their website reading (the acadian society) and really haven't come across any 'conspiracy theories'. Could you elaborate?
I don't know too many groups that stick conspiracy theories up on a website or they risk credibility. You would have to talk to their members as I have. The attitude among some members is that there's a grand English conspiracy much as the Anglo Society believes there's a grand French conspiracy. Both groups have a few points which are valid and to ignore either is to our detriment. However, the Anglo Society is widely ignored and the Acadian Society is given credibility. Don't foregt the Acadian Society began with many of the same people who wanted to separate NB back in the 60's/70's and create a new Acadian Province. That attitude still exists among some members although the goal seems to have changed to something else. The Anglos believe it's to assimalate the English. Seems a little far fetched but the Anglos do have a point about money wasted on bilingualism. Take Saint John. They had to convert all of their signs to bilingual. Makes sense when the signs have outlived their usefullness and you need new ones but to tear down perfectly good signs and put up bilingual signs and translate old by-laws in a city where you'd have a tough time finding a French person who doesn't understand English doesn't make good economic sense. This is a city where the tax bill is the highest in NB. Convert the signs when you can, translate by-laws on demand, but let's be real. I wouldn't expect Caraquet to convert their signs or start putting all by-laws in English. It doesn't make economic sense. The waste is huge and that's money that comes out of health, education and money for the poor. I'd rather see those dealt with then look at a $2000 sign or whatever it costs for Pompiers.
Spinks, for a change you seem to make sense on this one. Both in case of Union Jack and Saint John case you seem to have a point.
I think I saw a pig fly by. Ha Ha.
Seriously, it's unfortunate there wasn't more discussion before Lord imposed this one. Usually he consults with groups so much that little gets done. This one seemed slapped together and through the years it has potential to cost more than the orimulsion fiasco. Bilingualism should be used where and when it makes sense but not strictly for optics and to make gov't feel warm and fuzzy. It may very well be the right thing to do but as Lord himself has said, the government doesn't have a money tree to shake. He should have heeded his own advice on this one.
It is good thing to know that you recognize the incosistencies and contraditions of Lord. You got that one right.
If it was an ordinary citizen with that many personality conflicts it would have been OK. But as a Premier he is causing harm in every sector of society.
I don't agree with your blanket statement and that's part of the problem on this blog. According to folks here, "everything Lord has done is bad". I don't agree but certainly there are examples. My biggest beef with the guy is his indecisevness. He consults too much and can't seem to make a decision.
I never thought I'd recommend a CBC reporter's book but check out Jacques Poitras' book "The Fight for the Right". It's available at the public library. It's well written and tells the story of the Conservative Party quite well in NB including Lord's rise. I don't think Lord is out to "screw" the province. What premier would? What is there to gain? I think as he's said he truly looks at his own kids and wonders how his decisions will affect them. I doubt he wants to screw over his own kids and maybe that's his problem with making decisions. I'd like to see a more decisive leader as premier. I'm not sold that Shawn Graham is that man, at least not yet. As always IMHO.
Your humble opinion has some merits but there is another perspective to it. Bernard Lord does not know better and is totally incompetent. Forget about being Mr. Dither he has made some horrible decisions and it will take another book to describe them all - screw-up on Orimulsion is one of them. He was too busy trying to sell Colson Cove to worry about a contract. Actually reliable story is that NB Power was instructed not to sign a contract as the plant was being sold. Plant was not sold and rest is history. $3 billion disappeared.
Your humble opinion is improving and do not regress and keep it up.
If members of an organization hold certain views that doesn't make them the views of an organization. Just like you can join the liberal party, but just because you are a member doesn't mean you are speaking for that group. So more accurately you should name the people or say 'I know a person..' or some people who are also members, etc. However, I must add here that for a guy who spends a fair bit of time in front of the computer you certainly seem to 'know' an awful lot of people from various walks of life.
For bilingualism, well, changing signs is of course a one time thing that was done decades ago. You have a right to oppose bilingualism if you like, but although I wasn't there at the time one of two things happened: either the people of Bathurst, or some other french town had to change THEIR french sign to also include english, or else the sign that was up in their town WAS english. In the first case it's simply a case of equality, in the second it is rectifying a clear injustice (it would be like living in St.John and having only english signs).
Personally, I think northern New Brunswick SHOULD have separated, then of course you wouldn't have bilingualism to worry about and the north would probably be far better off. The province is an ENGLISH province with ENGLISH law and political structure, so acadians are definitely under a foreign government. Bilingualism is an attempt to change that, and quite honestly if a person doesn't have the brains to simply learn to speak french they really have nothing to complain about-it isn't that hard.
On another point official bilingualism is the ONLY thing that even gets New Brunswick noticed nationally or internationally, if it weren't for that most people wouldn't even know anything about it.
Finally, it is actually cost effective since the demographics of the province is changing. With a decreasing population, in particular of anglo NB'ers, the percentage of french is increasing-in St.John as well-check the census. Which means by having changed the signs ages ago it saves having to change them now, when we can least afford it. Plus, of course, signs are metal so the signs are recycled. I hope you have a better argument against bilingualism than having to change the signs thirty years ago.
Sorry my friend (Mike?), the signs I'm speaking of have changed in the past two years not 30 years ago. Any Saint Johner can tell you that, and when you're paying $1.80 on your property tax, it's tough to swallow.
AS for calling people essentially stupid who can't or don't want to learn French, that's a pretty arrogant statment and really just propping up the Anglo Society's argument of assimilation which frankly I don't buy but you have given it some validity. In Canada if you want to speak just French or just English that's your right at least last time I checked. I can speak French and I guess you can too by your statment but I certainly don't look down at those who can't.
Where angels tread carefully fools jump right in. You are wading into bilingual issue,Spinks, with some interesting point of view. Do you understand all the cultural issues and how certain cultures are trying desperately to survive?
Maybe it is where angels fear to tread and maybe that's part of the problem. No one likes to talk about the "white elephant" in the room but we should. These are real issues. To ignore them in the hope they'll go away is foolhardy.
Let me repeat:Do you understand all the cultural issues and how certain cultures are trying desperately to survive?
There are lots of cultures. Which one are you talking about that is desperately trying to survive?
For the current context, French and Native cultures. They are being swallowed up by Anglo-American culture.
I didn't say I looked down my nose at them. As you say, people are free to speak whatever language they like -or none. YOu can grow up and only know klingon if you want-just don't be surprised if people don't supply you with sympathy when employers won't even look at your resume.
For St.John, well, you can pick if you want, but I'd have to use that 'stupid' word again since St.John has had thirty years to change their signs. In fact I'm surprised they were allowed to go this long-which means the government gave quite a bit of leeway. For taxes, you can scream about the $1.80 tax for that, but that would have been easily covered if such a generous tax break weren't given Irving or if the government had just put pennies away beginning thirty years ago when we got official bilingualism and the writing was on the wall.
The other point is that it's clear which side of the fence you are on, so learning to speak french certainly hasn't affected your 'cultural identity'. I have no idea why people think learning another language means they will somehow forget theirs.
The only real 'cultural attributes' that I possess are ones which I have evaluated from other cultures and found to be beneficial. Many are also aboriginal, and many are ancient celtic and many other traditions. If it's helpful, keep in, if not, dump it. That certainly doesn't mean franco's are trying to 'take over', in fact, I don't even know what that means.
10:02 - not sure where the native issue comes into this thread but you can clear that up. As far as French or Acadian goes in the context of this thread, it would be tough to justify that it's trying desperate to survive. Acadians are probably the most vibrant culture in NB. I haven't seen any evidence that it's dwindling away.
10:33pm - When you say ana rrogant statment like "person doesn't have the brains to simply learn to speak french they really have nothing to complain about-it isn't that hard." is pretty arrogant. It's easy when you know it like yourself. It's a daunting task for many others. Those kinds of attitudes just breed more groups like the Anglo Society. Why give them fuel for the fire?
"Why give them fuel for the fire?" It is interesting this is coming from you, Spinks. You are providing fuel for all kind of fires. Unfortunately useless fires. So often you keep beating dead horse. Your knowledge is dangerously lacks any depth at best. You have just learned few catch words here and there.
Acadian culture is vibrant. How many Acadian in southern part of the province can speak French. Remember Robichaud (I believe that is his name) who was one of the prominent member of COR. What that tell you? Spinks do some research before you regurgitate your half-baked non-sensical ideas on these pages, if you call them ideas at all. Mostly they are clichés. Why are you subjecting so many with your misconceptions and diatribe?
It is 'vibrant' in large part because it is protected-that's what 'official bilingualism' is for. Your argument is not logical, you berate the system which protects the minority culture by claiming that the minority culture doesn't need protecting. That's like holding a bunch of glasses up on a table and then claiming that we can take away the table because the glasses seem to be holding up fine.
My comment wasn't 'arrogance', although I admit it was somewhat harsh and insensitive, mostly because I was partly chastising myself for having let my french slip considerably. If somebody wanted to, or needed to learn french there are tons of opportunities. Although I quite agree the government should be doing far more there are french channels to watch, french radio, and you can go to the library and sign out tons of instructional material. In that regard it is just like saying that not knowing how to use computers is no defense. Libraries have them, and second hand ones are dirt cheap. Also, it's hard to find employment without knowing how to use them.
There are no doubt some people who have learning disabilities, or have other reasons for not being able to learn these things. That's a separate argument, as is the native one-so I shouldn't have even brought it up.
My original point was simply to get more details on exactly what was being referred to specifically and we really aren't going anywhere on that. If nothing else I've discovered their website which has lots of info so I'm thankful that the topic was broached.
You guys waste an awful lot of time attacking me. I do lots of research. It's just research which doesn't fit in with your preconceived notions of things. That's okay. I find sometimes your folks writings thought provoking but when it's simply "Spinks, you're stupid" the value drops. Too bad we don't have more of the other.
There is research and then there is research. If you wonder around in Sahara desert try to catch fish you are not going to get any. The language you speak is gibberish which majority here do not understand. Good luck in you rantings.
If it's not understood that's because I don't view things in shades of grey as many here do. I view most things as black and white. That means two things. You're either going to nod your head in agreement or shake your head in disbelief. That's why when I post to a thread, so much discussion begins and those threads receive the most posts. I freely acknowledge on this particular blog rarely do those visiting share my views although this particular thread did generate some agreement way up near the top. That's encouraging. But for the 100th time there's an easy solution for you, if you don't like my so called "ranting" just pass me by and move on. If I'm not worth wasting your time on, don't waste it.
"You're either going to nod your head in agreement or shake your head in disbelief." Spinks so far everybody is shaking their head in disbelief because you live in time warp somewhere in 1800's. However you have every right to your rantings. But you post misleading material & it needs to be corrected. Why you are putting yourself through it and others through it is a unclear. If you are a Tory then even Bernard Lord will be afraid to associate with you and Stephen Harper will nervous too.
Why you say unbelievable stuff as you used word "disbelief".
You also show disdain to others' point of view and some rational comments in response to your rantings. Please show some respect. Otherwise all the best. Nothing personally against. Just your views belong to dark ages.
Don't know what's so unbelievable but feel free to point out the "unbelievable" stuff.
If you're the same fellow with the argument down the way who believes higher fines don't discourage people from speeding, then your concept of unbelievable frankly is unbelievable. However that's my opinion and you're free to disagree. Personally I'm just happy my opinions gets read and generate so much discussion. I doubt "everyone" shakes their head. If you truly believe I'm the only one with these opinions or that these opinions are only shared by a few you need to broaden your circle of acquaintances. That's why I visit a site where it appears most visitors are of the left wing/NDP persuasion. It gives me a broader understanding. Try it, you'll be a better person for it.
Spinks as someone said, you are incorrigible. You have received input from too many that your views on many issues stink. If you are trying to spread some kind of word then you have chosen very wrong methods and you have miserably failed.
Spinks, you are delusional if you think anyone has endorsed your views.
Someone agreed above about five posts down. Read it if you like. Ignore it if you want. Obviously you said I was incorrigible since it was today.
Sheesh, you guys need to start signing your name to things. Makes it a lots easier to address people
And you sign your real name?
I give you my name as an identifier. Call yourself "Scooby-Doo" for all I care. At least there would be a point of reference. That's the courtesy I give you. It allows you to ignore my comments or address them. Anonymous could be 20 people posting or one. Some get upset when I point something out and they say it wasn't them. Well, that's too bad when almost everyone's anonymous. Be prepared to be misidentified.
Misidentified by whom? You? Who cares.
I would tend to agree particularly when someone signs anonymous but some do. Go figure. Didn't like Scooby Doo, huh?
Scooby Doo? Stick with Spinks. That does you justice.
Justice and the truth are what I'm all about so I will. Thanks.
Quite the contrary. You will not know justice if it hit you on your head judging by your posts.
I would love nothing better than justice to hit me on the head. It unfortunately is rarely served. The criminals rule the streets.
Judgements by judges are pretty weak and obvious re-offenders are let loose to prey on the innocent. I concur, bigotry is unacceptable even though I get labeled as such by you, I certainly don't consider myself one. I simply think people should be judged as individuals not by race, gender or sexual orientation. Those things shouldn't put you on the bottom and they shouldn't put you on the top.
Post a Comment